"Validating your model" Topic

Macladdie
So, your non-player sub-units are going to make decisions.

G6

That would be great. If I solved that I'd have found the gaming holy grail!

My issue with systems I've encountered that take God like control away from the player, is that we as players end up powerless. So while I've got it so sub units/officers present a range if options that the player must use in that situation. I want the players engaged.

Macladdie

Other than a rubric kind of process, using all the circumstances you've mentioned like training, terrain etc. what are you thinking? Cards? Lots of information can be placed on cards.

G6

Not set… i like the action and immediacy of dice (not numeric) but cards can as you say have more info.

Macladdie

How do you see players determining sub-unit decisions?

G6

Training gives the number of options. Experience allows initial options to be repacked. Personality determines whether certain actions have to be used or have to at least be attempted to be changed

The player is using that to respond to the situation within the constraints.

Macladdie

It does leave the question of what information about those sub-units does the player have or can have? What information do you see the players having to make decisions with?

G6

Another holy grail in games.

I'm implanting that neither side knows the effects of fire say until they check. I'm certainly against the player having too much information, about their own and opponents.

That is a legacy IMO of competitive games where we mKe informstion open tk stop cheating and using systems that need calculations. Which give immediate and clear results.

G6:
I agree about the God-like game powers taking away any decision-making on the part of the player in the name of 'friction.' Often there is no indication the designer knows what real commanders with training and organization do to mitigate friction… even on the battlefield.

Not set… i like the action and immediacy of dice (not numeric) but cards can as you say have more info.

Well, regardless of whether there are pips or crossed swords on the die, it still comes to the same thing. Players are like real commanders in that they work the most mundane and minuscule aspects of a campaign or battle [or rules] to eek out the slightest advantages. Napoleon did this all the time. "Calculating" the odds of rolling a six or a crossed swords or drawing a particular card etc. is in the gamer's DNA. Get over it.

Training gives the number of options. Experience allows initial options to be repacked. Personality determines whether certain actions have to be used or have to at least be attempted to be changed.

The player is using that to respond to the situation within the constraints.

It has helped me to look at the actual times commanders made such decisions, how often and what they knew and how much. I am not clear on what era your rules are for.

With my Napoleonic rules, the player is a corps commander, or in a small game, a divisional general. During this period, the actual method of attack a brigade or division would make was determined before any advance or defense. This was standard practice for all the armies. It was specifically detailed in the officer's manual used to train French officers from 1805 Sometimes, like before Borodino, Kutuzov, the Army commander told the officers how to counter-attack. They didn't always, but a good percentage of the time during the battle.

Here is an example from Talavera and Stewart's orders:

"The advance of the French columns is invariably announced by a general fire of artillery throughout the whole extent of their position; and the ordinary custom was not omitted on the present occasion. A murderous cannonade spread havoc among our ranks, whilst the attacking parties, covered as usual by clouds of tirailleurs, pressed forward with the greatest firmness and regularity. Our people had received instructions to reserve their fire till the enemy should have arrived within a few yards of them, and giving it with effect, to bring the bayonet immediately into play. They obeyed those orders to the letter. The heads of the enemy's columns were close upon our line before a musket was discharged, and then one volley was given with a degree of precision which must have astonished those against whom it was directed.

So, the player only has a limited control over what division commanders choose as the tactics to employ. There are SOPs when no orders are given, but that was seldom the case. Well, first off, what choices to division and brigade commanders have? How often? Here is an example of British brigade tactics over twelve battles:

Talavera, Albuera, Salamanca, Vittoria, Roliça, Vimeiro, 2nd Battle of Oporto, Maida, Bussaco, Orthez, and Toulouse.

The total count for the above 12 battles, counting both offensive and defensive initial actions, is:

Volley fire alone: 13
Volley and charge: 16
Charge/no fire: 19
Advance and fire/charge combo; 7

Also, comparisons to French tactics can indicate the chances of success with each combination of tactics.

As both sides will be choosing their tactic card before an engagement, usually before entering or the enemy entering the approach zone. [artillery range according to period tactics]

The British player has cards with the tactics in the above percentages. The French has his own percentages and tactics. The player, as commander can instruct troops to use a particular tactic, but can only increase the percentage of those tactics, not guarantee them. At the appropriate time both sides choose the card unseen, bring the troops into combat and then the cards are revealed and the combat carried out. This is where bluff and intuition of the opponent's tactics come into play. But the tactics may not be the player's choice.

One thing that a number of commanders said about this 'point of decision' [name of the rules] is doing the unexpected often gained an advantage. For instance, French armored cavalry would at times receive the charge of light cavalry standstill in line, boot to boot.

The cards include the results by the training level and experience of the troops involved. Any tactics that would be considered 'surprising' to particular opponent are noted on the card for an advantage. And the card deck represents the sum total of the 'doctrine' for that army.

I just give this as an example of how the methods of command suggest the ways it can be represented, giving the player the same options and lack of 'control' the real commanders experienced.

Macladdie
Well, regardless of whether there are pips or crossed swords on the die, it still comes to the same thing.

G6
Not really.
The dice indicate the actions. Say fire mave cover whatever.

Of course we all calculate the odds but we don't think about odds like a bookie at a race track or most war game designs, where we are thinking numbers.
Lots of research has been done which had helped me in my day job but also influenced in how i frame a game i want to play.
But asnsaid before this front loads any variable. You determin the actions and then use them. Rather than determining a course of action and the roll of dice etc to see.if it succeeds. I'm also interested in the interaction of both sides actions rather than. How successful is course of action and then how well do they react to it.

Which also leads to.. I need a "6" thinking. which isn't how Napoleon thought 😉

Also there's no crossed swords. They work in certain contexts but I want to be thinking about actions not symbols which aren't as you say really any different from pips.

Macladdie
Get over it.

G6
Hmm. Not sure there's anything to get over. 😉

Macladdie
The total count for the above 12 battles, counting both offensive and defensive initial actions, is:

Volley fire alone: 13
Volley and charge: 16
Charge/no fire: 19
Advance and fire/charge combo; 7

G6
I have areas of interst. I have not set period as such. Part of my wider interest and day job as I'd mentioned before is in identifying universal principles.

Interesting info and useful but what it doesn't tell us is "why" those choices were made in each occasion.
And when the decision was made it was made by the people there not by the commander several steps up the CoC

Macladdie
Also, comparisons to French tactics can indicate the chances of success with each combination of tactics.

G6
Yes. When it comes to resolving an action then it's down to the choices of tactics/actions. Of both sides and that's what I'm also interested in

Macladdie
The British player has cards with the tactics in the above percentages. The French has his own percentages and tactics. The player, as commander can instruct troops to use a particular tactic, but can only increase the percentage of those tactics, not guarantee them. At the appropriate time both sides choose the card unseen, bring the troops into combat and then the cards are revealed and the combat carried out. This is where bluff and intuition of the opponent's tactics come into play. But the tactics may not be the player's choice.

G6
Sounds good. I've used similar. Do they have free choice in what tactic they pick?

I like the idea of the interplay of choices. And have used it. The but for me is that I'm still making my choice and the assumption that subordinate units do what I want. How do you have the choices not be the ones the player wants.?

Macladdie
One thing that a number of commanders said about this 'point of decision' [name of the rules] is doing the unexpected often gained an advantage. For instance, French armored cavalry would at times receive the charge of light cavalry standstill in line, boot to boot.

G6
Indeed. Despite what Ushcha was worried about. My goal had been to allow options based on what they have. How do you vary what the players has to work with?

Macladdie
The cards include the results by the training level and experience of the troops involved. Any tactics that would be considered 'surprising' to particular opponent are noted on the card for an advantage. And the card deck represents the sum total of the 'doctrine' for that army.

G6
How do you allow the unexpected to happen? As a player or commander will seek to optimise their advantages and odds how does that get decided?

Broadly it sound similar to some of my thoughts And close to a RPS approach in some other games. Both war and more personal combat games.

I'm now looking a level below this to a degree, looking at the blocks that such tactics are built from. Tactics are built to solve a problem that is due to the conditions and circumstances of that time.

Volley and bayonet can only happen in the conditions where they can exist.

The dice indicate the actions. Say fire mave cover whatever.

G6:

The odds of X happening, fire, move, cover, whatever is still a probability on a die roll.

But as said before this front loads any variable. You determine the actions and then use them. Rather than determining a course of action and the roll of dice etc to see if it succeeds.

Frontloading with a dice roll is still a chance event. The question is where and how real commanders made decisions in the process. I personally hate this rolling for 'command actions' as though commanders said "Okay, I can move only three of my five commands, so which ones do I move?" That has no relation to reality at most all scales.

Commanders make orders to ALL their commands and then things may go sideward, but He can't know where and how before hand.

Do they have free choice in what tactic they pick?

The players can if they want to, but it is far more realistic to just pick a card from the deck and not know which it is. Why? Because it is being made by a non-player character and don't something a Corps commander would control other than a general order--which only ups the odds of their choice being made.

The but for me is that I'm still making my choice and the assumption that subordinate units do what I want. How do you have the choices not be the ones the player wants.?

The above is an example. The player can only control and make decisions about what the real commander could. Sub-units make decisions, usually alone doctrinal or SOP lines.

How do you vary what the players has to work with?

That depends on what the Corps commander 'had to work with.' Generally, the commanders and what he could order. Organization and training control what he can order a unit to do.

How do you allow the unexpected to happen? As a player or commander will seek to optimise their advantages and odds how does that get decided?

The card selection does that compared to the opponent.

Volley and bayonet can only happen in the conditions where they can exist.

Not necessarily. Evidence shows commanders ordering tactics that simply don't work in a particular situation. There is an example of the unexpected from the player's AND sub-unit's perspective.

I have areas of interest. I have not set period as such. Part of my wider interest and day job as I'd mentioned before is in identifying universal principles.

It is all fine and good to make command puzzle games, but from my research, command conditions and options are very period specific. There are very few 'universal' principles across the history of warfare other than clear orders…

Maclladie
The odds of X happening, fire, move, cover, whatever is still a probability on a die roll.

G6
Again. Didn't say it wasn't but the players is then thinking on the odds of getting a move cover fire etc. Not rolling a 6 etc. That differene is vital For me.

Macladdie
Frontloading with a dice roll is still a chance event.

G6
Didn't say it wasnt. However as the numbers of dice say vary and the chance to re roll for experience and personality means the players isn't powerless and gets to tinker with "the cards they are dealt" and yes it could be cards though I've found in this case cards make it feel a bit too much like a card game

Macladdie
The question is where and how real commanders made decisions in the process.

G6
What commanders, Bn Rgt Bdge etc.
So yes. That's all true. I'm just putting something that kills several IMO birds with one stone, for me.

Macladdie
I personally hate this rolling for 'command actions' as though commanders said "Okay, I can move only three of my five commands, so which ones do I move?"

G6
OK. But this is not one of those as I'd hoped would be clear by now. As I don't like them either. All 5 commands will do something. It just may.. or may not be something that the player wants or at least intially intended.

Macladdie
Commanders make orders to ALL their commands and then things may go sideward, but He can't know where and how before hand.

G6
Exactly… and in a 1 player tt game we are stuck. So I found a way to in some way simulate those things that are out of their control… while not making the game, not a game

Macladdie
The players can if they want to, but it is far more realistic to just pick a card from the deck and not know which it is. Why? Because it is being made by a non-player character and don't something a Corps commander would control other than a general order--which only ups the odds of their choice being made.

G6
Makes sense. Though once randomly chosen is there a way to alter it?
Otherwise it feels a little too….. random… 😉 and why I didn't go further down that route. It works for me in certain situations. As I've said I'm interested in knowing the personality of a sub commander and as such having an idea of what they will do.

Macladdie
The above is an example. The player can only control and make decisions about what the real commander could. Sub-units make decisions, usually alone doctrinal or SOP lines.

G6
OK. Makes sense again. I think the distinction is imo in interpretation. I also want players to be a bit more involved. So the units choices are constrained
I'm still unclear how this doesn't get bogged down but I assume it doesn't and its my grasp of how it operates that's not complete.

Macladdie
Not necessarily. Evidence shows commanders ordering tactics that simply don't work in a particular situation. There is an example of the unexpected from the player's AND sub-unit's perspective.

G6
I meant we don't see Volley and Bayonet in earlier periods because the the weapons and or organisation didn't allow it. And as time changes it becomes obsolete, eventually.

Macladdie
It is all fine and good to make command puzzle games, but from my research, command conditions and options are very period specific. There are very few 'universal' principles across the history of warfare other than clear orders…

G6
Command puzzle games?
Human psychology and physiology interacting with organisation/social structure and technology create the way combat is carried out in a time and place.
Training 3Ci etc work to over come specific issues humans have when threatened needing to work together etc.

All this creates specific solutions in different times and places I'll agree.
But to me that's an expression of those factors/principles. In the way the principles of Music or visual art are expressed differently across time and place.

But I'm also thinking principles in terms of a game about conflict.
So often when I'd read a set of rules I was reading a rejigging of old mechanics to make the feel of whatever period. But like I'd quoted earlier.. they don't feel like WARgames… but dice games.
And when I saw rules that claimed to be multiperiod. They were again just more generic rules spread across periods and didn't really feel like they captured the period or capture any over arching feel of combat across time.

Now what you've described above does sound like it feels of the period and sounds intriguing

When I'm thinking about what I wanted, was to identify and distill the actions available to a person or group or people that other actions/tactics are built from

they don't feel like WARgames
That's because war is not IGYG or any of the variations. Chess is a wargame only in a very abstract way that can teach concepts but not real tactics as there is no suppressive fire, combined arms simultaneous attacks, FoW, etc.

There are very few 'universal' principles across the history of warfare other than clear orders
Time is universal across all periods, there is no escaping it, and is the great scenario balancer.

When a commander makes a plan I think he is more concerned about how long it will take rather than the chances of it succeeding. The longer it takes the chances are less of it being executed correctly. Friction and FoW increase the time it takes.

If the enemy executes his plan before you he has seized the initiative and your commander now needs to rely on the initiative of his sub-unit commander to do the right or wrong thing or take additional time to get the updated intel, evaluate it, and issue a new order that will take time.

While you are doing that the enemy has the initiative to exploit. This can end up putting you on the defensive because you are always responding to his actions because he seized the initiative from you. Once you lose the initiative it can be very hard to get it back as it is not a random determination.

The goal is to execute your plan before the enemy executes his (OODA Loop). The ideal plan may not be feasible because you don't have enough time to execute it or your subordinate isn't capable so you need a Plan B.

In most games, orders are unrealistically and immediately executed and your opponent may not be able to react even if it is right ni front of him. IIRC there is a game where a tank can move into your LOS right up to your side and shoot point-blank without any action from the target or any other supporting or overwatching units. However, there are a few historical cases of tanks being rammed in the side without getting a shot off so it can happen.

Wolfhag

Time is universal across all periods, there is no escaping it, and is the great scenario balancer.

Wolfhag:
Time is used and experienced differently visa vie command depending on the period. I am not sure how it is a scenario 'balancer.' What do you mean?

The longer it takes the chances are less of it being executed correctly. Friction and FoW increase the time it takes.

If the enemy executes his plan before you he has seized the initiative and your commander now needs to rely on the initiative of his sub-unit commander to do the right or wrong thing or take additional time to get the updated intel, evaluate it, and issue a new order that will take time.

While you are doing that the enemy has the initiative to exploit.

Very true. On the battlefield, as most miniature games are if not a campaign game, that OODA loop is different for Ancients and Medieval, 1600s through 1900, or later periods. So, agreed, time itself is universal, how and why it was used in particular ways in command depends on the period. Radios and vehicles, GPS and remote cameras make the battlefield very different from Napoleon's 'time.'

The goal is to execute your plan before the enemy executes his (OODA Loop). The ideal plan may not be feasible because you don't have enough time to execute it or your subordinate isn't capable so you need a Plan B.

Maybe, it all depends. Napoleon at Austerlitz waited until the Allies committed to their plan before initiating his.

In most games, orders are unrealistically and immediately executed and your opponent may not be able to react even if it is right in front of him.

Yep, I agree. Knowing the time/communication lengths is important and different for different periods. The issue of realistically providing wargamers with command decisions and time relationships continues to be one of the more unrealistic aspects of hobby rules.

The odds of X happening, fire, move, cover, whatever is still a probability on a die roll.

G6
Again. Didn't say it wasn't but the players is then thinking on the odds of getting a move cover fire etc. Not rolling a 6 etc. That difference is vital For me.

G6:
So, it really is a question of how the game mechanics focuses the players' attention on more 'realistic' semantics. I'm all for that. I just think there are more effective ways to do that than just different dice. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use symbol dice instead of numerical dice.

However as the numbers of dice say vary and the chance to re roll for experience and personality means the players isn't powerless and gets to tinker with "the cards they are dealt" and yes it could be cards though I've found in this case cards make it feel a bit too much like a card game.

So often when I'd read a set of rules I was reading a rejigging of old mechanics to make the feel of whatever period. But like I'd quoted earlier.. they don't feel like WARgames… but dice games.

And when I saw rules that claimed to be multiperiod. They were again just more generic rules spread across periods and didn't really feel like they captured the period or capture any over arching feel of combat across time.

Oh, I agree with that with bells on. The question then is how to make a wargame 'feel' like a wargame and not a dice game. It must start with understanding whatever it is we want to illustrate with that 'feel.' It also requires that the players know what they are suppose to 'feel.'

Wolfhag
That's because war is not IGYG or any of the variations. Chess is a wargame only in a very abstract way that can teach concepts but not real tactics as there is no suppressive fire, combined arms simultaneous attacks, FoW, etc.

G6
Only partly. The emphasis is on the mechanic, so the mechanic becomes the game and then period is fluff around it.
Your rules strike me as ones that really do something different there are.some others. It's just that indeed most don't deal well with a lot of factors.
The two main issues for me are that most game systems draw from other games
And very few think about what are key elements in war/combat and what are new ways to model that… too often is see.. accurately models combat of the time. Etc… but all it is dice rolling variant. And even when it is different in many ways is till comes down to the rolling of dice or some other game mechanic

Again another reason I've been very interested in your rules as they seem to look at what they are modelling and work from there. Rather than what mechanics that we already have that are close to this.

Yes time is a unchanging principle.

The difficulty is in implementing it in a 1 v 1 tt game.
You seem to have made it work in your rules. Though I'm still not sure I can wrap my head around making it work out side that set of conditions. Not to say it can't. Only that I've not got my head round it. 😉

Humans experience time not in a mechanical way and I think there is a place to reflect that in a game that aids in immersion/experience

Again another reason I've been very interested in your rules as they seem to look at what they are modelling and work from there. Rather than what mechanics that we already have that are close to this.

G6:
Wolfhag's rules do that. It is focused on tank to tank warfare. It is very fine-grained in respect to time. It works very well.

I agree with you. If there is a desire to represent reality at all, a designer has to:

1. Understand and build a picture of the major elements of a period of war at whatever command scale desired. Too often there is very little of this in miniature wargame design because conventional/common 'wisdom' is used--which produces the same old thing.

2. Build a game system to represent this with mechanics rather than throw together game mechanics the designer likes from past games.

3. Test the game against the real thing, compare the two. What happens if successful is that players will discover that play and optimum play will have them experiencing the actual challenges and thinking like the period commanders.

What is done now is the hat rack of old game systems is strung with tinsel and lights and it's sold as a Christmas Tree.

Which is why I ask what period you are attempting to mimic. Granted it will always be a focus on some aspects and not others, but that touchstone is necessary. Creating a simulation wargame is twice as hard as a system that is just a game. Many miniature designers take the easy way out. They create entertaining games that have little to do with real war.

Black Powder and Bolt Action are two great examples of the Hat Rack Christmas tree. The designer strung together game mechanics they liked and a system that was entertaining, and that was it. One read through of either rule book demonstrates little thought beyond the conventional understanding of the period… and by conventional, I mean shallow and/or wrong.

I tried to show how my design choices were build on how things worked during the Napoleonic war…what controls and decision-making commanders had…Capture that, THEN making it entertaining.

Let's look at the definitions of different types of combat and the related time involved: link

Please do not get into a discussion of what you think or feel the definitions are or should be. It does not matter.

My system is an action that takes 1-5 minutes of game time using one-second turns and 2-3 hours of real time so no longer than other games with 2-8 players. Each side is normally no larger than a reinforced company. I play on a 6-12 foot table with micro or 1/144 scale models with 1" = 25m but you can use any scale.

The action is fought in multiple duels that can be 1:1 or up to 5:1 depending on maneuvering, tactics, and luck.

All units are "active and observing" at all times and under a move or shoot order.

If you are going to scale it up to an Engagement units would be platoon size with a series of Actions between platoons taking a few minutes to a few hours. A platoon stand would be about 100m in size.

The basic formula for calculating the probability of Tank A defeating Tank B in a single engagement could be something like:

There are other methods too.

Wolfhag

Concepts of time have changed culturally and organisationally but operating in time can't be ignored also it can not be separated from distance and range.
Rapidity of attack or motion doesn't mean anything of the outcome doesn't affect the opponent.

Any principle is something that doesn't change over time.

And of course time and the OODA Loop is not only about being faster its about operating at the right time. There's also speed time/distance and Tempo Time/actions.

Being in the right place to deliver before your opponent even if they start first is what is important.
So getting to or being given that place before they do is more important than pure rapidity

Macladdie
, it really is a question of how the game mechanics focuses the players' attention on more 'realistic' semantics. I'm all for that. I just think there are more effective ways to do that than just different dice.

G6
OK, well it's not just different dice. It's about changing the nature of the structure of the game and how sub units act or can act.
And putting the variety in front. There's lots else going on order etc comms plans supporting fires units. Hidden movement

I'm also not wedded to the idea. I want to find solutions. If there is something more effective, then I'll adopt it… I've just not come across or thought of one yet. 😉

Macladdie
That doesn't mean I wouldn't use symbol dice instead of numerical dice.

G6
👍🏻 as I said before it's not symbol dice in this case. The card or dice use words or ideas. A symbol is no different to pips in this case and needs additional interpretation.

Macladdie
The question then is how to make a wargame 'feel' like a wargame and not a dice game.

G6
Well imo that starts with removing the normal gameist elements. Numeric dice and +/- modifiers etc. Front loading variables to provide elements that are used. Etc.

Macladdie
It must start with understanding whatever it is we want to illustrate with that 'feel.'

G6
Yep. Feel is the personal response/reaction to what Wolfhag was calling the conditions of how the thing functions.
But the conditions being things operate in their own way, within parameters.

Macladdie
It also requires that the players know what they are suppose to 'feel.'

G6
No. The player feel whatever they feel. The conditions of the experience will create situations that they will have some feeling. I've never played a game or other experience I need to know how I should feel about.

Now it could semantics on what feel is.

The two main issues for me are that most game systems draw from other games

There isn't much of a choice. After 50+ years of gaming design, I think designers have reached the limit of what mechanics and rules they can utilize. All you can do is try to be creative by coming up with special rules and die roll modifiers.

The problem is when you establish a turn as a set amount of time unless you use OODA Loop action timing to execute actions and playable simultaneous movement you need to figure out a non-timing method to parse the action of all units within the game turn using IGYG variations, activations, and command points, command dice, initiative determination, etc.

So if you are going to have a "fair and balanced game", which real combat is not, it's very difficult to portray the differences in a gun's rate of fire. This means in many games an IS-2 that has a realistic ROF of 1.5 rounds/minute fires as many times as a 37mm which can fire 10-15 rounds/minute in a turn. If they do fire more than once per turn, how do you portray the different rates of fire being interactive with all of the units on the table?

The bottom line is, do whatever you want because it's mostly subjective as to what the designer and players like and expect to get the right "feel" and the different mechanics, cards and dice they want to use. If you like it and your mates like it and want to play it over and over again I think it is validated for your group. Games should also be judged based on the designer's intent, not what someone else thinks because there are no formal standards to be compared against.

Opportunity fire is difficult to portray because a vehicle moving at 20kph is going to move almost 350m in one minute. So where exactly should it be when you shoot at it?

If you do use timing then ideally you need a playable way to portray simultaneous movement for all moving units on a second-to-second basis which solves the opportunity fire problem because movement and firing are synchronized on a second-to-second basis. Impossible, you say?

If you engage a 20kph moving target and it takes 10 seconds to shoot it will move 55m and may be out of your LOS by then. If the target is shooting on the move at you and shoots in 8 seconds and knocks you out – too bad – you're dead and don't shoot. You were two seconds too slow!

Believe it or not, I've solved all of these problems and it is simple enough for a 14-year-old with a slight learning disability to play.

Wolfhag

There isn't much of a choice. After 50+ years of gaming design, I think designers have reached the limit of what mechanics and rules they can utilize. All you can do is try to be creative by coming up with special rules and die roll modifiers.

Wolfhag: Oh, I really disagree with this. Miniature wargames and board games to a certain extent have been caught in a time loop for decades. Other simulation and game communities are not, and have shown that they haven't reached the limit of either mechanics or rules.

The bottom line is, do whatever you want because it's mostly subjective as to what the designer and players like and expect to get the right "feel" and the different mechanics, cards and dice they want to use.

When you say that, you trash a great deal of what you said you were trying to accomplish with your rules.

Entertainment is critical, but not a 'bottom line' that negates any simulation value or objective validity.

Well imo that starts with removing the normal gameist elements. Numeric dice and +/- modifiers etc. Front loading variables to provide elements that are used. Etc.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree because new game design doesn't start with what you want to avoid. I know I have come up with some original ways to portray Napoleonic Warfare, mechanics I can justify with specific evidence. I didn't do that by starting with removing everything I felt was 'gamey'. That is a null set. Wargame/simulation design starts with knowing the reality/experience you want the players to have and THEN finding mechanics that can produce that experience. Original approaches then are much easier to see and develop. Wolfhag did this. He started with the evidence, THEN developed a system to illustrate it. In doing so, he created a very different approach/system.

It must start with understanding whatever it is we want to illustrate with that 'feel.'

Yep. Feel is the personal response/reaction to what Wolfhag was calling the conditions of how the thing functions. But the conditions being things operate in their own way, within parameters.

I am not sure I follow your last sentence. Feel can be the personal response/reaction to conditions of how the thing functions. However, the personal reactions will be much like the set of all other dealing with the same conditions.

IF that feel is something you want to design for, then you need to understand how those conditions produce the feel. Then you can design for it. Personal experience in a game is narrowly focused on the world the game produces whether that is chess or Chutes and Ladders. The players' personal experiences can be predicted. That is, whatever the player's experience and personal sense of the game's 'feel', a good part will be what an effective wargame and simulation has created.

If you are all hot to trot in creating a particular feel of warfare with your game, good goal. However, if once created you believe the actual player experience and game feel will be anything, unpredictable, and very subjective--what exactly are you designing for?

I have to agree with Mc Laddie, you need to start from scratch. We like many wargames started by modifieing a set of rules. It works so far and then stalls. In the end we went back almost to square one, read the manulals and then experimented wildly with mechanisms with few contraints to find out what gave us the best representation. What came out were wildly diffrent mechanisms to anything in the plethora of the more commecial games.

Starting from scratch you can shape all the aspects to give you an integrated model where all the parts fit, not possible by grafting on bits to an exsisting rule set.

From both wargaming and proffesional expertience the key is to define in detail what it it you want before attempting to find a mechanism to approximate your wants.

You want personality for you sub units a worthey aim. Ignore the rules, write yourself a definition not in game mechaism terms, but just what it is you want, when where, what why, howoften, what parts of the battle, when/if they go back to being ordinary.

Take a lef out of your own book, don't get caught in numbers/mechaisms. As the definition gets more details, it highlights bits you may not have thought of in the original vauge impressiosn we all start with.

It will also give you a rank order when trying to get something workable about what the most important sections of your concept are and where inevitable compromise will do least harm to the overall idea,

This may be a bit scattered as i think im responding to 3 posts.

Macladdie
I said i was happy to use any thing that works I'm not wedded to any one mechanism.

BUT given I want the rules to be as invisible as "rules" as possible and things that break immersion, which thinking about modifiers and target numbers etc. it very much a design goal to avoid certain things. To do otherwise would be counter my design goal.
Any design needs parameters or requirements . That must include what it needs to do and should include things it shouldn't.

Game duration for example. if I can never complete an entire engagement in the time I have then I need to do something so I should to set a time limit as a pre design goal.

And given you asked me how I would go about creating the "feel" (feel being personal) I was after. Not what you are after. It makes neither one right or wrong of course

As mentioned before in the context of professional designers thinking on purpose in wargame design
Data
Learning/training
Experimental
Experiential

I keep stating I'm in the experiential bracket and we talked about conditions creating experiences.

Macladdie
Wargame/simulation design starts with knowing the reality/experience you want the players to have and THEN finding mechanics that can produce that experience

G6
That seems to contradict what you did about discarding thjngs.
By your own definition if I know what I want the system to do… I can already know what doesn't work. Especially if we have experience In the subject. With 40 odd years of games I know that I don't want certain things BECAUSE they contradict the experience I want.

Macladdie to Wolfhag
When you say that, you trash a great deal of what you said you were trying to accomplish with your rules.

G6
Because he's doing what HE wants to do in HIS game.
What this mammoth discussion has been about is discussing what we belive a wargame needs and explaining those personal concepts. We don't have to agree

Macladdie
Entertainment is critical, but not a 'bottom line' that negates any simulation value or objective validity.

G6
If I am not "entertained" by the game… I'm not going to play it. Now what different people define as entertaining is like feel… is personal. Any idea I come up with or come across needs to excite me.. I need to want to implement the idea. It needs to entertain me… its a hobby.
In my day job I'm trainjng people to do thjngs they will need to perform under stress. They have to do it. BUT… I know that if I can engage people they will learn and perform better… that enagement needs some form of entertainment/excitement/enjoyment.
No… that must not superceded the vital elements of what they need to develop or acquire but the two go hand in hand.

Macladdie
I am not sure I follow your last sentence.

G6
Meaning that the conditions create the experience. They are what they are i can use peoples interactions with the conditions to change their experience. Now experience can tell me what the likely reactions to the conditions/experience will be. But its still about controlling the conditions.

I thought my last post said the feel was was personal. When I used it was to do with my own experience of other people's rules and games they didn't feel like what they claimed to be representing. Now I would like my players to experience the game as what they "feel" the period is in their understanding. But for me it's about understanding the conditions.

Again I know from what I do as a job about creating conditions to provoke certain feelings but in the game I'm creating the conditions.

As to period. Again varied. Like I said I'm looking at principles that each periods expresses and exploits on different ways.

That's a difference I see. Rules designer says I like the ACW or whatever and then designs ACW rules and systems. What I'm doing is looking at those things that I see as consistent across time and place and then put them in the conditions/circumstances/constraints of the period. Then see how those interactions reflect what we know of the period.

I don't want to speak for what Wolfhag did… but what I see is he looked at how things are, that Time is a universal in combat, the OODA Loop a frame work to understand that. And then had evidence that allowed that to be explored on the TT.

I see clearly how it works for AFVs but as I said I'm less clear on how it works on the TT for infantry. He says it does so I believe him.
I like what he's done as I see it being and feeling right, As a TT experience based on what it's representing.
Also because I've use OODA in my day job and other interests so I get what I think he's aiming for as it aligns to what I would like.

Ushcha
Yes… i have started from scratch. That's the whole point. I wasn't getting what I wanted in other ways. I've seen elements that have inspired a new ways to look at things from different angles.

But I'm already happy with where things are, looking at first principles. The difficulty is that it's different and that can make discussing difficult as we have different points of divergence and base assumptions we have on how combat is, how wargames are, how they should be. Etc.

For example I spend time Working in and with different martial arts etc. Listening to the ins and outs of how to throw a "punch" or which punch is better depending on style!
And of course ignoring that the hand would be better off holdind a striking tool than being the tool.
But which ever way, Is an expression of human anatomy physics and culture.

I see that as we expand from details of an action to personal and group combat we have to add the psychology and technology.

When you say that, you trash a great deal of what you said you were trying to accomplish with your rules.

No, what I am trying to accomplish is a game that "I" wanted that was not available. I'm not going to tell people that they are doing it wrong if they don't agree with me. I leave that to other people. We're all creating our own little reality.

Other simulation and game communities are not, and have shown that they haven't reached the limit of either mechanics or rules.

I was addressing the historical miniatures and board games. Which ones haven't reached their limits and why not?

Regarding my infantry rules:
The only real similarity is that the hand-held AT weapons take time to deploy, aim, and fire. When units are involved in a firefight I use the volume of fire to simultaneously determine results every 10th turn (sometimes sooner). This REALLY speeds up the game. As per the vehicle game, all units are active and observing. There are several drills units (from the training manuals) can use when engaging or reacting to the enemy. Suppression degrades return fire, communication, observing, and moving. Fire & Movement needs to be coordinated.

It allows a player to perform almost any action or tactic that units in the war performed.

Wolfhag

When you say that, you trash a great deal of what you said you were trying to accomplish with your rules.

No, what I am trying to accomplish is a game that "I" wanted that was not available. I'm not going to tell people that they are doing it wrong if they don't agree with me. I leave that to other people. We're all creating our own little reality.

Wolfhag:

This is what you wrote:

The bottom line is, do whatever you want because it's mostly subjective as to what the designer and players like and expect to get the right "feel" and the different mechanics, cards and dice they want to use.

That is not what you were saying at Conventions I attended. That isn't what you said you were trying to accomplish, and that isn't the 'bottom line' you were going after with all that research from our conversations. I was listening because I don't believe that representing history and combat is the 'Bottom line.' and certainly not 'mostly subjective.' Certainly not the way you designed your game system.

Other simulation and game communities are not, and have shown that they haven't reached the limit of either mechanics or rules.

I was addressing the historical miniatures and board games. Which ones haven't reached their limits and why not?

Uh, depending on what you think their limits are, I would say your rules are a good example of going beyond the 'limits' of what miniature rules can do. European games have provided a number of innovative mechanics and systems, which are unfortunately often ignored by miniature designers. The only limit to miniature wargaming is
1. imagination,
2. understanding wargame and simulation design, and
3. the limits conventional gamer expectations place on designers' psyche.

BUT given I want the rules to be as invisible as "rules" as possible and things that break immersion, which thinking about modifiers and target numbers etc. it very much a design goal to avoid certain things. To do otherwise would be counter my design goal.
Any design needs parameters or requirements . That must include what it needs to do and should include things it shouldn't.

G6: I think that is a fine goal, one I want to accomplish too. The first question is how game systems/mechanics create that immersion. What makes the rules 'invisible' when the rules are what circumscribes the action and game decisions?

Meaning that the conditions create the experience. They are what they are i can use peoples interactions with the conditions to change their experience. Now experience can tell me what the likely reactions to the conditions/experience will be. But its still about controlling the conditions.

G6: I agree: Conditions create the experience, the game system creating the players' experience. A designer controls those conditions. You are wanting particular experiences, such as immersion.

There has been a lot of studies on immersion, called flow, magic circle, focus, and a lot of other terms. The conditions for immersion in a task, where the world goes away and you are only focused on the task at hand, 'immersed' in the world the game inhabits, that immersion needs the following elements:

1. Meaning: The conditions have to have some relevance to the players and their expectations. Often wargames fail to provide the historical meanings to the game, so it becomes just a game OR they don't find the meanings intended. Both can be obstacles to immersion.
2. Concrete Relationships: Wargame rules are very abstract. The more relationships to the real world a game provides, the easier it is to become immersed.
3. Balance of easy and difficult: Players get into the 'flow' when the challenges aren't too hard, thus discouraging, and not too easy, then boring. Obviously, easy to read rules, less markers and rules to remember help create immersion.
4. Physical: An aid to creating an immersive experience is when the play has many physical aspects. One reason that miniatures and die rolling are popular is this aspect.
5. Control: The more control a player feels he has, the more invested he becomes.
6. Variety: Whether it is innovative rules or just lots of different types of play, games that provide that remain popular. Those with one note or have one 'solution' are quickly forgotten. For instance, games that have many avenues to victory provide more variety.

Games don't have to do all six elements, or include them in equal measure, but the more of those six you can inject into your system, ups the odds of creating immersion.

'Gamey' rules and mechanics are a problem because they have little context or meaning in the game's environment [by definition] and pop players out of the immersion. Meaning requires that players know what X mechanics represent in the portrayal of a real world situation they have committed to.

3. Balance of easy and difficult: Players get into the 'flow' when the challenges aren't too hard, thus discouraging, and not too easy, then boring. Obviously, easy to read rules, less markers and rules to remember help create immersion.

To me thi is so0mewhat oversimplified so not that credible as a requirement. While obviously for a given level of detail the rules need to be at some optimum minima. However simple rules are in grave danger in my experience of being unrealistic and cannot possible ever be immersive they are too far from reality, they may be acceptable for some who have no clue as to the period but be utterly unacceptable to those that do.

A better statement would be that the rules need to be optimised for the audience, and that in reality it is immpossible to optimise for all audiences. If you have read the mauals of the period and extensive history and accounts of the period then you require a much more comprehensive set of systems to adequately reflect that.

That nubers destroy the game still seems at odds to me. I go hill walking but I do not obsess about the detail of locamotion it's there I can pay attention to i,t I do have detail control but it does in no credible way shape my experience.

Die rolling is a neccessary evil but no mor,e it does not shape my approach to strategy. However to achieve tais we have made sure that there are the absolute minimum of exccessive extreems so as little as possible hinges on a roll of the die.

Macladdie
G6: I think that is a fine goal, one I want to accomplish too. The first question is how game systems/mechanics create that immersion.

G6
Invisibility and immersion have to work together. "Invisjbility" aids immersion.
Of course immersion has two facets. Immersion in activity.. the game or table. Minimal tk no time away from the table looking things up and makjng calculations etc. The immersion in the "period" the mechanics can be designed to feel of the period.
But things such as avoiding table clutter and when needs to be on the table isn't intrusive. So no dice for ammo counters no his rings or chits but figures running away etc

Macladdie
What makes the rules 'invisible' when the rules are what circumscribes the action and game decisions?

G6
Obviously they can't be truely invisible at least with out umpires or were an electronic game. And event then we need to learn the interface.
So it comes down to me to simplicity, immersion and table focused

-Simplicity means they are learnt and implicated as simply as possible
-immersion what I've mentioned but also added by simplicity and by it being as intuitive.
-table focused. I don't need to look away from the table to operate the rules.

Macladdie
Games don't have to do all six elements, or include them in equal measure, but the more of those six you can inject into your system, ups the odds of creating immersion.

G6
Yes. I'm aware of flow states etc.

Macladdie
'Gamey' rules and mechanics are a problem because they have little context or meaning in the game's environment [by definition] and pop players out of the immersion. Meaning requires that players know what X mechanics represent in the portrayal of a real world situation they have committed to.

G6
Indeed. See previous notes above.
Say you want a unit to fire on an enemy unit. You roll the action dice for the unit and want "fire" faces. I want the unit the dice need to say fire.

Ushcha
A better statement would be that the rules need to be optimised for the audience, and that in reality it is immpossible to optimise for all audiences.

G6
Hence we design first for our audience. Starting with ourselves and then the group we play with.
Especially if we have a more niche interest.

Ushcha
If you have read the mauals of the period and extensive history and accounts of the period then you require a much more comprehensive set of systems to adequately reflect that.

G6
We need to recognise what is useful to us in designing a game in those manuals. Training manuals focus on organising real people in complex groups in complex and stressful situations.

I need to distill what of that is viable to impact and replicate on the TT.
Also the manual. Is a reflection of those common threads I'd mentioned before being codified for the time and place.
And while there may be complexity in the actual interactions, really all I as a commander need to know is did it work or fail. My AT team fires on a tank. It eithe4 succeeds or fails. I can add improved odds for flank and rear etc. There by rewarding appropriate behaviour.
It for me comes back to fidelity and resolution. I need enough resolution to give appropriate fidelity

Ushcha
That nubers destroy the game still seems at odds to me.

G6
😉😁 numbers… at odds.
For me "numbers" destroy the game because they are what I would be thinking in the actuality. When I shoot in most games the success or failure comes down to a number. When I shoot in real like its down to how well I shoot

Ushcha
I go hill walking but I do not obsess about the detail of locamotion it's there I can pay attention to i,t I do have detail control but it does in no credible way shape my experience.

G6
which seems to me to prove the point. The only numbers you may consider the distance you want to cover and the time you have to do that. Then your pace count. As a movement person I'd say you do need to optimise your movement but you "train" that before you need it.
But how how would be handled in a game?

Ushcha
Die rolling is a neccessary evil but no mor,e it does not shape my approach to strategy.

G6
I don't believe it's necessary
If your experience is otherwise and you had a hapoh medium great. But that's one experience.

Ushcha
However to achieve tais we have made sure that there are the absolute minimum of exccessive extreems so as little as possible hinges on a roll of the die.

G6
Again. Great if it works for you. Wonderful. I've made rules with minimal numeric dice… but for me…that was still too much. Also as I've said I wanted things to be about the interaction of choices rather than numbers.

Of two units engaged in a fire fight trying to gain fire superiority. Rather than compare numeric values and add a numeric randomiser to decide tbe result which leave the player needing a number on the dice.
I'd rather have actions so the side that has more "fire" actions so now the player is thinking about more "fire"

I get that may not be for everyone.. but its something I'm doing

Wolfhag.
Thanks for the info it makes more sense now.

There's a difficulty imo with combined arms mechanised warfare in that we end up with a vehicle game with infantry. Or an infantry game with vehicles.

Nothing wrong with that focus

I'm interested toward a different emphasis on the human factor. Why vehicles and other crew served weapons seem to respond differently to infantry in combat. Why tank crews, at least from my reading about ww2 reacted the way they did.

3. Balance of easy and difficult: Players get into the 'flow' when the challenges aren't too hard, thus discouraging, and not too easy, then boring. Obviously, easy to read rules, less markers and rules to remember help create immersion.

To me this is so0mewhat oversimplified so not that credible as a requirement. While obviously for a given level of detail the rules need to be at some optimum minima. However simple rules are in grave danger in my experience of being unrealistic and cannot possible ever be immersive they are too far from reality, they may be acceptable for some who have no clue as to the period but be utterly unacceptable to those that do.

UshCha:
I think you misunderstand what the balance of easy vs hard is that I am speaking about. It has only a passing relationship to simple rules. The research into immersion and flow make it credible. For example:
link

Jesse Schell explained the different states of the flow channel in his book The Art of Game Design:

When the skills [of the player] in the game increase slower than the difficulty of the challenges, the flow of the game creates a sense of anxiety for players. . . . where the skills are too low, and the challenges are too high. When the skills increase faster than the difficulty of the challenges presented, then the flow of the game becomes boring to the players. . . . where the skills are too high, and the challenges are too low. The flow that you want to create in a game would be directly inside the flow channel. This is where the skills and challenges are balanced effectively, and the player is neither anxious nor bored.

If the player is too anxious, or too bored, it will drive them to frustration. Frustrated players will not continue playing your game.

A better statement would be that the rules need to be optimised for the audience, and that in reality it is immpossible to optimise for all audiences. If you have read the manuals of the period and extensive history and accounts of the period then you require a much more comprehensive set of systems to adequately reflect that.

The conditions for immersion/getting in the flow is universal. The basics for any game. The audience certainly will want different levels of challenges. What is 'required' is a designer's decision. What produces the conditions for player immersion are pretty universal and ignored at the designer's risk.

A better statement would be that the rules need to be optimised for the audience, and that in reality it is immpossible to optimise for all audiences.

Perhaps not for all audiences, but for games to have wide success, they have to move beyond thinking about satisfying a small group. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't all that impossible to optimize game play for large numbers of wargamers.

Invisibility and immersion have to work together. "Invisjbility" aids immersion….Yes. I'm aware of flow states etc.

G6:

Yes. Great. So, creating the conditions for immersion in a wargame for players can be a wide variety of techniques including 'invisible rules', Intuitive rules [there is a deep dive].

Hence we design first for our audience. Starting with ourselves and then the group we play with. Especially if we have a more niche interest.

All games start with the designer creating for him/herself. How many you want to entertain with your creation is the designer's decision. All the same, the elements for creating an immersion-friendly design doesn't change.

Also as I've said I wanted things to be about the interaction of choices rather than numbers.

Have you seen games like that? I can give some examples. Do you still want chance to play a roll? Or not?

Of two units engaged in a fire fight trying to gain fire superiority. Rather than compare numeric values and add a numeric randomiser to decide the result which leave the player needing a number on the dice. I'd rather have actions so the side that has more "fire" actions so now the player is thinking about more "fire."

Have you created mechanics for that? There are several ways to approach that, assuming you want to use miniatures:
1. A matrix of opponent qualities and decisions producing an outcome. Several games do this including '
2. A result of combinations of players' decisions without any randomizing. The decisions create the outcomes without dice. The miniature rules The Complete Brigadier from the 1980's did this. A number of tabletop games do too.
3. Have hidden cards or indications of skills/equipment and power which are compared to determine the winner. The Fury of Dracula, 3rd edition used this combat method. [So does poker ]
4.A number use simple or complete computer programs or randomizers to act as the 'umpire' in resolving combat. The Computer system Carnage & Glory and a number of submarine games use them.
5. Obviously, umpires or game masters is another way, but even there, an IA system of cards or matrixes could be used to 'simulate' an umpire. [That or a Magic 8 Ball?]

I could go on. There are a number of ways to determine decision outcomes without dice. What are you thinking of and is that modern warfare? WWII?

I was listening because I don't believe that representing history and combat is the 'Bottom line.' and certainly not 'mostly subjective.' Certainly not the way you designed your game system.

Wolfhag:
I apologize for the confusion sentence. It should have read:

I was listening because I believe that representing history and combat is the 'Bottom line.' and certainly not 'mostly subjective.' Certainly not the way you designed your game system.

Macladdie
Have you seen games like that? I can give some examples. Do you still want chance to play a roll? Or not?

G6
Indeed I've be around tbe block. I have a set of designs they work… I'm not at this stage looking for and am batting philosophies around.

Yes as jd said before I don't have an issue with chance. But chance at the beginning of the process, like the options of actions. There's also chance in the selection of competent lingerie tactics.

Macladdie
A matrix of opponent qualities and decisions producing an outcome.

G6
I don't like matrix. It breaks my design goal. It requires attention away from the table. I've used them in csrd operated games where the are on the cards. It works in certain contexts.

Macladdie
A result of combinations of players' decisions without any randomizing. The decisions create the outcomes without dice.

G6
A quick solutions can be purely decision based. A RPS appraoch but with unequal outcomes. For example Fire Manuever Cover.

Generally inprefer a blended method where the randomiser on the options that the player uses. As it allows tweaking for skill experience and personality.

Macladdie
4.A number use simple or complete computer programs or randomizers to act as the 'umpire' in resolving combat. The Computer system Carnage & Glory and a number of submarine games use them.

G6
I'm a little surprised that I've not seen a phone app/s dealing with games more.

Macladdie
There are a number of ways to determine decision outcomes without dice.

G6
Oh yeah… and again I'm not opposed to dice. I don't like numeric dice.

Macladdie
What are you thinking of and is that modern warfare? WWII?

G6
Dice with the actions are proving
the most effective generally, as I've said before and above.

Like I said I'm looking at multiple periods as the core is about. Psychology physiology sociology and technology. The core remains the same… the human… then each period produces a system that intersects those factors.

Again a lot is not most games rules look at a period and create systems to replicate those thjngs that identify the era.

What I'm doing is looking at what is common across periods. Humans and what they do then by adding in period detail seeing if period responses imerge.

I've played wwii vietnam horse and musket medieval and Ancients. I also have played across from 1v1 to brigade sized operations in Vietnam.

I'd agree with wolfhag. One can have a very set idea of what a wargame should do and at the same time say people can do what they want even if diametrically opposed to my own.

My issues arise when some says they have the answers
Those are the answers we should all use.
Tell me my answers aren't right fkr no other reason than they are different to theirs.

I'd rather live in a world where there are questions that can not be answered than one where the answers can not be questioned.
Feynman

I was listening because I believe that representing history and combat is the 'Bottom line.' and certainly not 'mostly subjective.' Certainly not the way you designed your game system.

Not a problem. I believe the same for the bottom line. Entertainment and social interaction are important too but secondary to me. Even though my game can be validated historically to a high degree that does not mean that the results of a battle can be validated historically. I think that's what I meant by "mostly subjective."

Why? Because the game demands you use tactics just as they were used in the battle. Real crews needed months of training to do it right. For most players, it's a new concept, and being unsure they make many mistakes, I guess just like a green crew would. The have to think in real time, not IGYG. Data cards and charts do have EVERYTHING the player needs to perform actions and use tactics without memorizing them but not everyone reads them. Most players are used to being told what to do, when and how often by the game sequence and die rolls.In a time competitive game you need to think for yourself and can't sit around waiting to be told what to do or wait for your "turn."

However, if you are familiar with real tactics it is not difficult to implement them in the game without additional die rolls, exceptions, or special rules. Just like in any other game, no two battles will be the same.

The original game was "validated" by several former and current tank crewmen, some with experience in WWII vehicles, and they understood the terminology, tactics, and nomenclature as I took it from the manual. However, it presented a steep learning curve for new players. My design challenge was how to keep the game historically faithful to the manuals and tactics but have an easy entry for new players. I think I'm about there.

So the game is really about time management for each unit. Example: A new LOS is created from movement. Both players pause the game to react with a Situational Awareness Check rolling 1-3 D6s with modifiers for buttoned up/suppressed, the direction the gun is facing (overwatch), and crew type. This covers spotting and reactions in traditional games.

If the result is <= 0 you have spotted the threat right away. If it is >0 that is the number of seconds of an Engagement Delay before the unit notices/spots the threat. Delays are deadly and can give the initiative to shoot first to your opponent.

The next step in the OODA Loop is Orient. After spotting the threat, the player evaluates if it is best to issue a shoot order, move order, or halt fire order and what other Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions he can use (Snap Shot, Hold Fire & Track, Rangefinder, Angle Armor, Precision Aim, Ambush, Jink, Reverse Slope Defense, Side Scrape, Shoot & Scoot, Hull Down).

After this evaluation (Orient) he decides to make a decision (next in the Loop). To move he places a movement marker showing the speed and direction he'll move and maybe Jink and hope to get out of his LOS before he shoots. The movement marker will show him how long it will take to be clear. To shoot, if your gun was not overwatching in the right direction, first get your gun on the target by pivoting/turning or traversing the turret. The unit data card has the values of how long that takes. Using the data card, roll a D6 modified by the crew type to see how long it takes to estimate the range, aim, and fire. If it is game turn #25 and it takes 4 seconds to get the gun on target and 5 seconds to estimate the range, aim, and fire is his Act Time (Act in the Loop) will be turn #34, if you are still at that time.

In the example above, if one side had an Engagement Delay of 8 seconds before noticing the threat and the threat was able to fire in less than 8 seconds complete surprise was achieved and the target never knew what hit him. It's not a chance thing, it's all about timing, tactics, and decisions.

When I explain the OODA Loop in detail many people get confused. It's basically: I see something. What is it – threat or friendly? What are my options and tactics to do about it? Decide on an order or course of action, issue it, and wait for the crew to execute it.

After the order is executed I "Loop Back" to what do I see? What are my tactics and options, decide and issue the next order and wait for the crew to execute it. Players "Play the Loop" (issue your next order immediately after seeing the result of the last order) for each unit without the traditional IGYG, unit activation, initiative determination, etc rules. The mechanics involve rolling a D6 and recording your next future Act Turn.

Can I abstract all of the above into one die roll? Of course, but then it would not reflect the historical nuances of weapons platforms and crew performance, but I would for large games.

This is not the game for you if:
You like to roll the dice, "bang" you're dead, next.
Your turrets do not turn
You don't like adding or subtracting a couple of numbers
You don't like minimal charts or unit data cards
You don't like one-entry record-keeping
You like playing with your cell phone during the game
You prefer IGYG tactics

If you don't like my timing values you can substitute your own. You can use your favorite gunnery system too instead of mine. If there is a maneuver or tactic you want to implement just determine the historical timing and effect. You don't need to pile on special rules, modifiers, and exceptions.

Wolfhag

One can have a very set idea of what a wargame should do and at the same time say people can do what they want even if diametrically opposed to my own.

G6: I agree. However, if the designer's goal is to create something that mimics, represents, illustrates or simulated history or some aspect of reality, there are technical ways to do that, proven methods. Folks who ignore those methods and techniques are like someone attempting design a piston engine without pistons. Whatever they come up with, technically, won't be a piston engine, regardless of what they believe, feel or claim. Such an attempt/claim obviously means the designer doesn't understand how piston engines work.

Simulations, which do include most attempts at wargames, require specific methods to work. Those methods, the technology has been developed since the 1960s, but really took off with the advent of computers. MIT now offers masters in simulation. Simulation has become a major tool in a wide variety of arenas, from training to scientific research.

Now, there is no requirement that wargame designers create simulations or anything modeling reality, past or present. If, however, they claim to do such modeling without a knowledge of or use of simulation technology, they aren't going to be successful, much less able to objectively establish that success. That is not a personal [subjective] belief. It is established fact.

Whether gamers will enjoy playing such a simulation/wargame is another question altogether and gets into what makes games entertaining and immersive.

What I'm doing is looking at what is common across periods. Humans and what they do then by adding in period detail seeing if period responses emerge.

G6: I think that approach will miss the core human issues found in specific issues. The belief that there is some universal set of behaviors or conditions between eras where 'period details' will allow historical responses to emerge won't work, can't work.

Napoleonic soldiers standing elbow to elbow firing black powder weapons at an enemy standing 100-150 yards away and a grunt in the 20th/21st century 'empty battlefield' with automatic weapons don't have similar 'human responses' to combat. The Ancient Roman soldier carrying a shield and anticipating close combat with swords will and did have very different responses to the Napoleonic soldiers' responses to close combat with bayonets and swords.

Such an approach will miss the salient human behaviors found in each period, let alone the transitions between them. That has been my experience in researching different periods and playing such 'universal' rule sets with added 'details.'

Not a problem. I believe the same for the bottom line. Entertainment and social interaction are important too but secondary to me. Even though my game can be validated historically to a high degree that does not mean that the results of a battle can be validated historically. I think that's what I meant by "mostly subjective."

Wolfhag:
Really glad to hear it. That wasn't the impression your various comments regarding 'mostly subjective' I was left with. FYI.

I am not sure what you mean by the italized part of your comments. The game won't be much fun it the players are forced to make 'historical decisions' so the game turns out to mimic the historical outcome.

Regardless, the players' decisions and the scope of what they can accomplish should always fall within the possible, which isn't subjective. Player decisions certainly can be called subjective or personal perspective. However, as has been noted, conditions direct personal behavior. If the conditions and possibilities mimic history/reality, then player behavior will tend to follow historical decision-making… one reason wargamers play: To be faced with aspects of the historical conditions and possibilities.

What players like to play, as I have said, is another question. Not many rules there, but there are some principles that have been established over the decades.

Hobby Wargames cognitively have TWO 'primary' goals: model reality, past or present, AND create an entertaining game. There is a melding that must happen, but that doesn't change the requirements for accomplish either or both together. To ignore set of principles creates wargame failures.

From my perspective your perspectice of Mostly Subjective is incorrect. If you design the "building Bricks" to be correct. In your terms the timings of the commponents of the gunnery, then you will have a reasonable extimate of the real times. to do such things and that is most certainly mot mostly subjective. If you designed brick for a house and the otherlimitations on wall strength, size of window appatures etc, you could design a resonable facsimile of an exsisting house, not the objective of such a system but it validates its systems. Again not subjective.

We used systems to design and validate parts of an aero engine, in the main they worked as designed so the model was validated within certain limits.

Macladdie
Such an approach will miss the salient human behaviors found in each period, let alone the transitions between them. That has been my experience in researching different periods and playing such 'universal' rule sets with added 'details.'

G6
I'm not suggesting a roman soldier felt the same as a horse and musket soldier specifically. There are cultural factors at play.
But aren't you the one that said groups of people will behave in more or less predictable ways?

There's little to indicated that the human wiring in how we respond to potential death, violence group responsibility etc had changed across the time wargames cover.

They indeed experience this in a different environment but those are social/organisational and technological.

I'll agree I've not seen it done before.. but as it was done with conventional systems and mechanics which is don't like for just one period gaming. So they are unlikely to work for me across periods.

It may be a fools errand but I belive it works for me.

From my reading on behaviors stress response violence etc I can say I see threads in human behaviours and each era works to manipulate those to make efficient fighting styles within an evolving social and technological environment.
I can observe in effect stoneage tribes in New Gunea in battle behaving very much like rioters. Etc etc.
Now if we were to interview these people thay woild have things in common and divergence about how they experienced and felt these things but there are similarities in behaviours which are identifiable across both and to a greater or lesser extent.

With out disappearing down a rabbit hole the rioters or the tribes men operate in a default setting. Certain factors need to be met to change the default and these are in part organisational/social and technological.

In game terms it comms down to actions. What actions can I use to have my units do what I want. And which actions do those units use to do what they need to do.

And on a practice level as well with interests in too many periods I nonlonger want to spend time looking for or developing rules, specifc, in a conventional sense to each one. So im happy with my base engine of actions and behaviours and then I can tinker with the period appropriate stuff as it comes.

I'm not suggesting a roman soldier felt the same as a horse and musket soldier specifically. There are cultural factors at play. But aren't you the one that said groups of people will behave in more or less predictable ways?

G6:
I did say that groups of people will behave in predictable ways. Statistics have shown that… but that behavior differ between periods, situations, and groups. The mega data that has been developed by the likes of Google and Facebook have become scarily predictive. The predictive behaviors for any group in 1800 is not necessarily the same as 1900.

There's little to indicated that the human wiring in how we respond to potential death, violence group responsibility etc. had changed across the time wargames cover.

Well, I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that individuals and groups respond the same to the possibility of death through history.

A Roman soldier would advance to physically engage the enemy in hand-to-hand combat, sometimes for long periods of time. The evidence is that Napoleonic soldiers seldom engaged in hand-to-hand combat, one side retreating before contact with bayonets. However, in the Civil War, fists were often used instead of bayonets.

And on a practice level as well with interests in too many periods I no longer want to spend time looking for or developing rules, specific, in a conventional sense to each one. So im happy with my base engine of actions and behaviours and then I can tinker with the period appropriate stuff as it comes.

If you are happy with your 'base engine of actions and behaviors,' more power to ya. I am saying if you spend the time to 'tinker with the period appropriate stuff', if you really make an effort to portray a different period, I'm saying your base engine isn't going to work by simply changing the 'details.'

The British soldier advancing across the Somme in 1916 didn't behave like the Napoleonic soldier advancing at Salamanca 1812, regardless of the possible motivations. Conditions dictated the group behaviors.

However, if you are familiar with real tactics it is not difficult to implement them in the game without additional die rolls, exceptions, or special rules. Just like in any other game, no two battles will be the same.

Wolfhag:
As you explained in detail, I agree. That is the goal and outcome.

Macladdie
I did say that groups of people will behave in predictable ways. Statistics have shown that… but that behavior differ between periods, situations, and groups. The mega data that has been developed by the likes of Google and Facebook have become scarily predictive. The predictive behaviors for any group in 1800 is not necessarily the same as 1900.

G6
Not necessarily……
Why not?
Base reactions to stress conflict violence. Fight flight freeze Posture Submit are displayed across multiple species as well as out closest primate relatives.
Things can be identified across current cultures regardless of their "states of development" differences can be identified on different levels but can be explained but socialisation and training.

Macladdie
Well, I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that individuals and groups respond the same to the possibility of death through history.

G6
Why not? Socialisation can or can try to make differences. The common ideas found across martial cultures to make people engage in combat show there was a need to do so.

Macladdie
A Roman soldier would advance to physically engage the enemy in hand-to-hand combat, sometimes for long periods of time.

G6
Yes and they came from a culture thay regarded martial spirit a high virtue, that civilly and militarily enured individuals and groups to do so and underwent extensive training to make it happen as well as using weapons and armour that'll favoured this maximised its effectiveness as they had tapped in to a universal truth. Humans are averse to engaging at personal distance and if a side does it is more likely to carry the action. When the odds are similar then being able to sustain thag postion carries the action. And while battles may have on occasion lasted a long time. There's much debate on how much time in iminent danger was spent. And the Romans organisation and trainjng allowed them to maintain fresh troops when often their opponents could not.

Macladdie
The evidence is that Napoleonic soldiers seldom engaged in hand-to-hand combat, one side retreating before contact with bayonets.

G6
See above on the reticence to engage in personal combat.. there is also evidence that the use of thrusting weapons increases that effect.
Hence your data above on napoleonic battles. The larges proportion we either a charge or Volley and charge.
Also the rise of the fire arm allow larger numbers, because of the evidence that those who more willingly engage in Close combat are naturally smaller, tk engage by maintaining distance.

Macladdie
However, in the Civil War, fists were often used instead of bayonets.

G6
Indeed. Again the evidence is that unless they recover was behind some kind of barrier there was an unwillingness to stand in front a determined advance.
And of course the ACW creates more issues as it was a civil war so human hard wiring that encourages use to be less lethal in conflcit, especially close combat was amplified as the "enemy" looked and sounded like "us" there are numerous incidents where less and non lethal attacks were used

Macladdie
I am saying if you spend the time to 'tinker with the period appropriate stuff', if you really make an effort to portray a different period, I'm saying your base engine isn't going to work by simply changing the 'details.'

G6
You belive, you don't know…. again I'm not trying tk convince you to do it my way. Just explaining my intent and reasoning

Macladdie
The British soldier advancing across the Somme in 1916 didn't behave like the Napoleonic soldier advancing at Salamanca 1812, regardless of the possible motivations. Conditions dictated the group behaviors.

G6
Yes and no. Training and technology had changed. Reasons for fighting were different.
But tactics altered to reflect that as well. Mass attacks were started after artillery smoke or gas had be deployed. Trench raids and storm troopers were brought in. The French army suffered mass mutinies and "cowards" sensible In a modern sense we executed.

Though napoleonic armies enforced sever discipline tk ensure following of orders that risk life and limb.

Again the baseline of what is likely to win the battle will often be counter feelings of personal survival of those engaged. So training and weaponry will work to either engage closely or maintain distance and or dispersion.

In effect a person engaged or about to engage in combat can or will
Move , this may be fast with the object of close distance rapidly or at a pace to maintain formation, cohesion or cover.
Attack. This may be close or distance attacks
Defend. This may be active defence in close combat or maximising cover from missle weapons
Wait ready, ready to attack or defend or in more.modern periods in an overwatch
Prepare or reorganise. Dressing ranks after casualties or crossing and obstacle or having carried a positions and rallying.

The base actions can e expressed differently depending on period. Roman legionsnl move and fight the way they due to factors I've mentioned previously. Medieval archers or crossbows are move and fight the way they do

And which actions do those units use to do what they need to do.

I think it comes down to survival. In a firefight, you'll be ducking more than shooting back. If flanked you'll want to fall back. If your buddies are dying you don't want to join them. There is always peer pressure too.

Check out these papers:
PDF link
PDF link

Wolfhag

Ushcha started a great three. I have enjoyed it. I have not yet finished them all.
Also their are way too many points and methodology to comment on. I will make a comment. I just cannot help myself. In bed staring at my one leg. Lol.
I started my serious rule writing in the early 1980s. So my methods may be outdated. Challenging the model or as I called , system. Is an age old concept. I have worked with several designers over the years and had long one on one discussions with others.
Challenging the model is a constant rule. You make the note cards then organize them, while adding more cards all along. You establish parameters, various scales and beef up the rules.
Too keep a solid balance f play, every rule added must be debated.

When doing miniature rules, I often used paper forces before deciding on casting scale. When doing a bard game, I would play many variants depending on maps, hex, area or point to point, and playing pieces, counters, blocks, cards and pawns.

The challenges continue into the play test phase where reviewing feedback is important. Production choices will also need to go through choices.

👍🏻
What's out dated. If it works and most importantly it works for you.

I think it comes down to survival. In a firefight, you'll be ducking more than shooting back. If flanked you'll want to fall back. If your buddies are dying you don't want to join them. There is always peer pressure too.

Wolfhag:
The above characteristics don't all apply to a Napoleonic Firefight. No ducking down, and falling back if flanked may or may not happen--often is what just, 'refuse the flank.' Peer pressure is quite different when you are elbow to elbows with those peers as compared to one or two the next foxhole over, maybe visible.

Dupuy in one of the great links you provided above wrote referencing Clausewitz:

In these early pages Clausewitz touched lightly on points to which he devoted more attention later in the book. Numbers are important. So is rational analysis; for instance, numbers are less important for defenders than attackers because "defense is a stronger form of fighting than attack." Intellect and "genius" play a very significant role in successful combat. But he returned, time and again, to passion, emotion, and fear as the fundamental characteristics of combat. No one who has participated in combat can disagree with this Clausewitzean emphasis on passion, emotion, and fear. Without doubt, the single most distinctive and pervasive characteristic of combat is fear: fear in a lethal environment.

I have some respect for Dupuy and a lot more for Clausewitz. While true, to suggest that the pervasive characteristic of combat is fear is much like suggesting the pervasive characteristic of eating is hunger.

While true, it doesn't explain the variety of foods, ethnic customs around food, the reasons and times for eating, who joins you and why you sit down with them. etc. etc. etc.

To suggest the pervasive characteristic of dinner is hunger is both reasonably true, it also doesn't describe or explain the wide variety of behaviors around that need.

It is the same with combat through the ages. G6 explains the 'cultural' reasons for less willingness to engage in lethal hand-to-hand combat:

And of course the ACW creates more issues as it was a civil war so human hard wiring that encourages use to be less lethal in conflict, especially close combat was amplified as the "enemy" looked and sounded like "us" there are numerous incidents where less and non lethal attacks were used.

In other words, how that pervasive characteristic is imposed and expressed in combat varies. A Greek hoplite wouldn't have related to that ACW behavior. Nor would a Japanese soldier in WWII or a Spanish conquistador in 1600. Or a Napoleonic grognard.

Fear in combat is universal. Historically, it has been expressed by a wide variety of behaviors, tactics and battlefield performances, depending on the period and culture. To suggest that there is some universal set of behaviors because fear in combat is universal is to miss the boat by several dock lengths.

… passion, emotion, and fear as the fundamental characteristics of combat.

As I said, these are certainly universal ingredients in combat and war. How, when, where and why they are expressed are not universal by any means.

When Dupuy discusses "Quantifying the Effects of Fear" is where I start losing respect for him. His methods are to be sure 50 years old, but he isn't honest with how he uses them and 'fudges' in many places, overtly and covertly.

He goes on to say:

Military History: Indispensable, but Imperfect.
Please do not get the impression that I am saying that military history analysis will provide all answers to
questions about human behavior in combat, or that from military history analysis alone we can determine
how to represent human behavior in combat simulations. I am saying two things:

1. We cannot get the true answers about human behavior in combat without analysis of military history, and

2. Simulation factors that are inconsistent with historical experience are almost certainly wrong. [Duh!]

I must also make clear my recognition that military history data is far from perfect, and that–even at best—it reflects the actions and interactions of unpredictable human beings. Extreme caution must be exercised when using or analyzing military history. A single historical example can be misleading for either of two reasons: (a) The data is inaccurate, or (b) The example may be true, but also be untypical. Beware a statement which asserts: "Military History proves that…" (Who among us has not seen such a
statement?!) Military history doesn't prove anything. Good military history simply reflects—within the constraints of numerous human frailties—what has happened in the past under a great variety of circumstances, each set of which is probably non-reproducible.

I would have a lot more respect for him if he hadn't then gone on to write in many places that his data reflecting that history 'proves that…' and can 'predict that…'

However, I can forgive much of what he said and did because much of his methods, access to historical records, and lack of access to computers in computing his data is focused on big picture results. That is the coefficient relationship between combat effectiveness of say Soviet and NATO forces in the most general way… something that while interesting has little use in discerning actions within a battle. Much of what he wrote was fifty years ago. Lots has happened in historical records access, and computers, and simulation technology since then.

I am still not clear, in the end, how useful the military found his works. I know he didn't do so well in predicting how Desert Storm would play out.

I should point out that the [Duh!] I wrote wasn't directed at Dupuy, but rather that when he wrote it, simulation design methodologies were still in their infancy, so it isn't surprising that Dupuy would take the time to write something that now, 50 years later is primer stuff. AND that Dupuy's 'simulations' were more mathematical exercises working for large scale prediction abilities, rather than those of individual units in a larger battle.

The above characteristics don't all apply to a Napoleonic Firefight.

For the record, all of my remarks in this discussion are from WWII to the present. I don't do Napoleonic or ACW.

Some historical validation: During the night battle for Edson's Ridge on Guadalcanal (prolonged close quarters), some Raiders Marines started falling back on their own. There were senior NCOs and officers behind the front lines intercepted them and ordered them to "get back into your hole and die." which they did. It can happen to veterans if they are isolated without leadership.

On Iwo Jima, the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions were mostly composed of enlisted men in their first battle. However, they were well-trained and rehearsed for the assault and led by battle-proven officers and NCOs from Raider and Parachute units. By all accounts, they did pretty well. Many of the MOHs were awarded to E-2 and E-3 in their first combat. Why is that?

In Ukraine, most of the Western units are composed of combat veterans. However, 10-30% doesn't stay very long and experience does not always play a role. That 10-30% includes the Spec Ops guys, Rangers, SEALs, etc. who will return before their 6-month commitment is up. Some new guys with no combat experience go home after their first artillery bombardment experience.

Why? There are a variety of reasons. The biggest reason is that the war is not what they expected. Most of the Spec Ops types were "spoiled" in the WOT having all of the best support, initiative, weapons superiority, immediate medivac, etc. In Ukraine, you can be hunkered down in a basement or bunker for days under steady artillery and air bombardment without even seeing a Russian. Some of them thought they were Rambo and were killed in their first or second assault.

Some teams I've spoken to have accepted Westerners and Ukies with no military or combat experience and they have proven themselves in short order. There is no rank so leaders are chosen by the team and new members have to prove themselves or are told to leave. Western officers are mostly in a support role and do not lead combat teams or assaults but it is still vital.

A US Marine Corporal was "elected" to lead a multi-national Special Ops team of Westerners, many of whom were older and more experienced than him because he was best suited to get the job done, keep them alive, and keep morale high. He spent his own money on food, safe house rent, and vehicles. He is also a no-nonsense prick who relishes combat and leads by example. His assistant team leader was a 22-year-old Brit who came to the team with no combat experience but proved himself and did what he was told to do. Some guys have it and some don't.

The biggest morale challenge is being at the front in a trench, bunker, or cellar, and enduring hours of steady Russian bombardment, mostly from 122mm, 152mm, and Grads. However, as long as you are under bombardment the enemy will not attack.

They've found out that 10-30% of the artillery rounds are duds, QA is poor and when landing in the mud the effectiveness is greatly reduced. A few guys I met when I was over there said they were alive only because of the duds. The poor QA also decreases their accuracy too.

DePuy is just one source of many and no one has all of the answers or gets it right. They all have a bias to one degree or another. I would say that the main factors (there are many more) that apply to all eras of warfare are leadership, FoW, and fear of the unknown. How and to what degree you represent that in your game is up to you.

Wolfhag

Macladdie
Without doubt, the single most distinctive and pervasive characteristic of combat is fear: fear in a lethal environment.

G6.
There's no indication of otherwise. The interest then is in the social organisational and technogical aspects that seek to control it across time and place and that lead to the differences in behaviour you list.

Macladdie
o suggest the pervasive characteristic of dinner is hunger is both reasonably true, it also doesn't describe or explain the wide variety of behaviors around that need.

G6
Hunger is how we know we need to eat. Dinner ks time when we eat. Cultural differences etc are expressions of social environmental and technological aspects.
And the majority of those things come in to play when the immediate need for food is taken care of.

The key difference between hunger and fear. Hunger makes go to something fear makes us go away.

Macladdie
other words, how that pervasive characteristic is imposed and expressed in combat varies. A Greek hoplite wouldn't have related to that ACW behavior. Nor would a Japanese soldier in WWII or a Spanish conquistador in 1600. Or a Napoleonic grognard.

G6
We can't say as it didn't happen. Or when differences were encountered they were rejected and often belittled or they were adopted.

But again Fear was counted in each period by social condition build on natural human behaviours. Though training and technology.

Macladdie
To suggest that there is some universal set of behaviors because fear in combat is universal is to miss the boat by several dock lengths.

G6
So you don't belive Freeze Flight Fight Posture Submit?

Group and peer pressure. Because we are social primates will do much to counter this as we have reason as a species to prioritise group membership as more important than personal survival as evolutionary term as Group exclusion equalled death. And equates to modern military concepts on cohesions

So the period finds solutions to those behaviours. It encourages fight. How we fight is determinesd by the interaction of technology organisation social and militaru and the opponent

Or Posture. It makes sense at certain times to play martial music blow war horns. Bright and impressive armour uniforms and head gear. Less so at others.

It counters freeze flight or submit. All of which suffered extreme punishment .

Now the solutions to those things are as diverse as the times and cultures they are part of.

So to me that runs in the back ground.
We then have to think on more general manifestations.
The difficulty of getting groups to move toward and enemy. Once moving getting them to stop, then restarting a movement. Over crowding or loss cohesion. Proximity of danger and reactions to it. Bunching due to recievinng Missile attacks. Challenges of movement from cover or being prone. And so on

Again such things are expressed differently across time and llcenand affected by the other factors we've already mentioned. But for me they still stem from fundamental actions.

The above characteristics don't all apply to a Napoleonic Firefight.

For the record, all of my remarks in this discussion are from WWII to the present. I don't do Napoleonic or ACW.

Wolfhag:
I wasn't suggesting you do, just that for those periods, it was different. I appreciate your tour of the Ukraine front. I was taken by how leaders are chosen. It has a revolutionary flavor.

The biggest morale challenge is being at the front in a trench, bunker, or cellar, and enduring hours of steady Russian bombardment, mostly from 122mm, 152mm, and Grads. However, as long as you are under bombardment the enemy will not attack.

That is very similar to Napoleonic soldiers under artillery cannonade. They hated it, just standing there watching cannon balls flying at them. They preferred to be attacked by infantry or cavalry. Keegan in his "Face of Battle" has examples of that opinion.

DePuy is just one source of many and no one has all of the answers or gets it right. They all have a bias to one degree or another. I would say that the main factors (there are many more) that apply to all eras of warfare are leadership, FoW, and fear of the unknown. How and to what degree you represent that in your game is up to you.

No, no one has all the answers and certainly there is bias. Dupuy in his desire to get predictive numbers, simply tried to make numbers and statistics say things they didn't, apply them where they shouldn't be. Again he was at the beginning of simulation development, so some mistakes are understandable. Modern simulation design have developed methods and procedures to eliminate as much bias as possible. It is kinda necessary if you are going to represent something else accurately.

Those factors, Leadership, FOW, Fear etc. do apply to all eras of warfare. I would never suggest otherwise. But to understand warfare, the specific who, when, where and how, can't be ignored. Lowering some universal template over all of human behavior in combat misses most everything critical to portraying that period. A Napoleonic soldier would not recognize most of what you described as warfare in the Ukraine. Nor would I try to understand combat in the Ukraine using a Napoleonic template of warfare. I could find 'similarities' as I did above, but that is all, and certainly not enough to assume everything is 'similar' or that those similarities somehow are universals across all history.

That is why I am generally disappointed by universal rule systems that hang 'details' on it to simulate a particular period. Doesn't work and really sends a skewed picture of history. Just a thought of mine.

So you don't believe Freeze Flight Fight Posture Submit?

G6:
Oh, I believe in it as individual responses to danger. And I believe those responses by groups were evident too. Armies even had points where there was procedural permission to exercise one or more of those responses. However, as you say,

Group and peer pressure. Because we are social primates will do much to counter this as we have reason as a species to prioritise group membership as more important than personal survival as evolutionary term as Group exclusion equalled death. And equates to modern military concepts on cohesions.

So the period finds solutions to those behaviours. It encourages fight. How we fight is determinesd by the interaction of technology organisation social and militaru and the opponent. . .Now the solutions to those things are as diverse as the times and cultures they are part of.

I am simply saying that to suggest the behaviors are universal because primitive flight, freeze or fight responses are, doesn't get you beyond a starting point in
describing a particular period's warfare. Those basic human responses don't describe a culture's, period's, or army's "solutions" [to use your word]. To suggest that they are just 'details' to be added to a universal combat behaviors system simply doesn't capture much of what is critical in portraying an era's warfare.

Just my opinion, but I stand by it.

Falling off the bridge and flipping over, just for you UshCha: link

Wolfhag

Macladdie
am simply saying that to suggest the behaviors are universal because primitive flight, freeze or fight responses are, doesn't get you beyond a starting point in
describing a particular period's warfare.

G6
Well I wasn't saying it described the periods warfare.. which is an evolutionary process internally and externally.
I'm saying that a periods warfare is a response socially organisationally technologically to over come those things.
Also yes it is a starting point. But we need a starting point. Most rules that I think of start with base presumptions that start much higher than that. And often take base mechanics and then think how to mimic what seems to stand out about the period we model.

But I know from my work that if I want to improve the outcome say in movement pattern I need to identify the issues at the lowest level possible where an issue exists.

Macladdke
Those basic human responses don't describe a culture's, period's, or army's "solutions" [to use your word].

G6
Again didn't say they do.. however they are the back ground or baseline line that warfare or conflict works from. And each period or interaction provided a different solution

Macladdie
To suggest that they are just 'details' to be added to a universal combat behaviors system simply doesn't capture much of what is critical in portraying an era's warfare.

G6
I'd suggest that understanding the things that dont change is vital to better understand the things that do and why. Not doing so leads to a "form of short term memory"
And what and how do you define what is critical on portraying and "eras" warfare.

Macladdie
Just my opinion, but I stand by it

G6
Yes… and I'm not trying to change anyone's thinking, only, poorly it seems, explain mine. You not agreeing can give me an opertunity to better explain to myself what I mean.

This has also got me thinking that we talk about a era's warfare.. but what does that even mean. What we seem to describe amounts to a war etc. But obviously (I say) things constantly evolve. Such the way the war is waged and fights fought changes. Even in relatively short wars things evolve and change. The way that the war is fought at the beginning is different to how it is fought at the end.

Yet in most game, the rules, the way the fight is fought, largely stay the same. Some "details" change but does that reflect the reality.

Wolfhag talks about his experiences in Ukraine brings us up to the present with observations on how many things change and things stay the same.

I'd also say again that my interest in gaming is broad as my interst in periods is broad and its not only about KISS regards to what I do and think about in terms of games but also how I thjnk about and understand the continuity of combat conflict and war.

I'm interested in the continuity and connections but also in the whys because when one keeps asking why you will tend to get to some deeper point and the more you do that in other times and places the more connections one sees

🙅

Wolfhag
leadership, FoW, and fear of the unknown. How and to what degree you represent that in your game is up to you.

G6
I agree… but what does that mean.. leadership has been discussed at length but its hard to quantify. Other than say.getting others to do what you want that they otherwise wouldn't or people tondo more than they otherwise would.

FoW… how or can me replicate it on thebTT? Or can we think of the effects it has broadly.

Fear… the unknown creates stress and or fear, we can be fearfull of what we know… or what we think we know.

I'd suggest that understanding the things that dont change is vital to better understand the things that do and why. Not doing so leads to a "form of short term memory"
And what and how do you define what is critical on portraying and "eras" warfare.

G6:
While I agree with much that you've said, but… the italized section, not so much.

I've found that during the Napoleonic wars, and by a few antidotes, the ACW, once enemy units were engaged in a firefight, they'd stay in the fight until something changed the situation, like one side charging, reinforcements, a flanking. Now, out of over 100 such engagements, I can say that is pretty much the norm as that is 100% of the cases.

Now, I can guess that is because of the freeze effect, or perhaps the 'stand by your buddies' emotional attachment, or maybe just because once the black powder smoke has obscured the enemy, they don't feel as threatened by what they can't see. Unless I find some contemporaries stating why they stayed in the fire fight, it will all be jsut a guess, even knowing it has something to do with the 3Fs.

If I do or don't know the motivations of the participants in those many firefights, or assign Flight, Freeze or Fight to their behaviors… That doesn't change a thing as far as what I portray on the game table--if I want my game mechanics to align with the historical evidence.

If on the other hand, I find that infantry stayed only 60% of the time, I then can go looking for common circumstances that influenced the other 40%. Finding that will be valuable data for my rules and something that can be modeled.

On the other hand, knowing the basic human responses to fear and combat can only be a prereferral guess at what influenced a whole group of men to act, even with knowing the common circumstances around their actions.

Now, personally, I think the loss of money, one-note presentation of morale in a strictly hierarchical fashion, with disorder, withdrawal and rout the three basic responses regardless of the historical period, tends to fall back on the 3F proposition, without much evidence regarding the when, where, why and how of it.

If you are looking to create a wargame with generic situations, then you are free to assign and develop the psychological aspects all you want. For most all history, without detailed information in study form, as found from WWII to the present, it still all comes down to simply modeling group behaviors. Why units behave a certain way most of the time is really a guessing game unless some contemporary tells you why… and even then unless you have a good number of examples, it is just one person's experience.

FoW… how or can we replicate it on the TT? Or can we think of the effects it has broadly.

I fixed some spelling…

My answer would be: A game designer 'replicates behaviors' and those system models have to be based on the behavior of the period's combatants.

I would suggest that replicating the effects of fear 'broadly' simple takes you into generic territory, and not any particular period's behaviors.