"Validating your model" Topic

A blizzard is heading its way to the hills of Northern California, so I can bet on losing power. I will be back up and running 'probably' by Tuesday at the latest.

Good gaming until then…

You need to leave that state and move to Tennessee.

Wolfhag

Stay safe…

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

There are two separate points italicised

-Not doing so leads to a "form of short term memory"-

G6
I understand you could disagree with this but see later.

And

-And what and how do you define what is critical on portraying and "eras" warfare.-

G6
More sure the disagreement is on this and you didn't address it.

Re a form of short term memory
I'm refering to what see. Of lessons learnt at cost that are closed down or forgotten. Or things that have been shown not to work and are brought back. Or things that are shown to not work bur are stuck with despite changes in the normal context or when a new context is introduced.

Macladdie
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.

G6
I'd say you find a similar behaviour where the opposing forces are equipped with similarly effective missle weapons that have decent range and supplies of ammunition. Whether is tribe both equipped with bows or WotR English armies shooting at each other. The difference we see in Nap and ACW is numbers engaged.

Macladdie
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.

G6
We can just use tbe 3 F Posture and Submit have to be in the mix.

I'd say stay staying in a long distance missle contest is Posture. I am engaging in an activity that isn't direct engagement in personal space but it maintain the threat of it.

We see it group violence with hand weapons where the sides tend to hold of out of distance and "attack" the opponents weapons. This gets broken by individual closing distance and others following in less trained groups. Trained groups will move forward in a more organised fashion.

So organisation plays a part within the group and the ability to add others groups or units.
Tech plays a part. Not being able to see because of the smoke…. or the fog at Barnet or the snow at Towton.

Macladdie
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.

G6
Yes. But saying something happen is useful and vital.. as part of the puzzle.
Yes if I'm only interested in one era or war and i want to model that ota certainly a way to do it.

But if I am interested in multiple periods and I would like to at least use think a out gaining insight in to decision making and human behaviours then I want to do more. And as I've said before im interested in decisions and personality.
Your earlier reference to your rules where when units engaged and cards are drawn to show what is decided by each side.

On one level it sounds great and is based gathered data. I may nkt understand fully how you have it working but it sounds like the choice is largely random and while possible actions are based on the data you've you collected, do the actual outcomes on the table confirm to outcomes seen on the table? And while you have issues with not knowing why income situations don't in others.? 🤔

Now thinking on FFFPS May be a "guess" but it's not a random guess like rolling a dice or picking a card.

'Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.

My issue is that just because we can't collect data on something is some who is less important.

Instead of guess I'd say imagine..

Macladdie
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.

G6
Hmm sure to a degree. But where would be is we'd all said well we haven't yet enough data so we won't bother?

And again data is affected by multiple factors l. Just because someone reports why made decision is not automatically why they made a decision.

Macladdie
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.

G6
Money? 🤔 whose got the typo now? 😉

I've never liked it either because evidence doesn't consistently reflect and its as you hierarchical and relies on arbitrary values.
And if its based on an interpretation of 3 Fs that model is incomplete without Posture and Submit.

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

G6
Yes.. where that's possible. I'd say they create systems and conditions where those behaviours come about. If they don't there's an issue with the system

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

G6
You misread my question was about replicating Fog Of War. Not fear in this case.
Though if FoW is uncertainty that will drag fear in to it.

My point there was that trying to replicate FoW on the table for the player may not be possible with out causing other issues, so we might look to replicate how FoW affects the units under our control.

I should also be clear that I'm not suggesting thag FFFPS should be used directly in a game system. Though its serves as a background.

I've more been explaining why I'm looking at common aspects across time and place.

Hope the snow hasn't been too bad.

G6: No, happily, the snow wasn't bad at all. I was able to get down to my MIL's 99th birthday.

Money? 🤔 whose got the typo now? 😉

I've never liked it either because evidence doesn't consistently reflect and its as you hierarchical and relies on arbitrary values.

I was too crypic. It was 'money.' As in some units have lots of money, some don't, one-note morale levels, both lose it over the events of a battle till they go to zero. However, you got the idea. There was a board game many years ago on The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ 1954. What was interesting is that the French units were in steps, and the first step saw the combat ability of the units increase…having lost all the dead wood [excuse the macabre pun] creating smaller, more effective units. That involved morale…

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

Yes.. where that's possible. I'd say they create systems and conditions where those behaviours come about. If they don't there's an issue with the system.

If it isn't possible, then you really can't replicate those behaviors because you don't have any evidence for them. The system is either built on the evidence for those behaviors or tested against that evidence [which I think you are saying above]. As a designer trying to create game systems where those behaviors 'come about', you still need to know the historical/current behaviors either way--because that is what you are attempting to capture.

I should also be clear that I'm not suggesting that FFFPS should be used directly in a game system. Though its serves as a background.

I've more been explaining why I'm looking at common aspects across time and place.

I do understand that and am questioning the design usefulness of such 'background.' That the hunt for the common aspects involves creating a template [FFFPS] and attempting to fit it everywhere isn't a valuable game design background. It gets very philosophical very quickly.

For instance. There is the example above about infantry under an artillery barrage. Napoleonic soldiers hated it, standing shoulder to shoulder, wishing the enemy would attack, stopping the bombardment. The example Wolfhag gave has the Ukrainians hugging the ground in trenches preferring it to when it stops, meaning an assault.

Now we can ask whether that is Submit or Freeze, or Posture, or… Under those categories, we may see similarities, we may not. Regardless, we are still left with the actual behaviors, which is the ONLY thing that can be replicated in a simulation if we are talking about evidence.

Now thinking on FFFPS May be a "guess" but it's not a random guess like rolling a dice or picking a card.

No, it isn't random, but that doesn't make it closer to the real thing by default. You still have to match the actual evidence.

'Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.

No, not everything can or should for a wargame, particularly behavior. However, it one wants to know what the changes are of a particular unit doing X, you run into numbers.

My issue is that just because we can't collect data on something is some who is less important.

I *think* the reason you say that is you believe that the evidence isn't available…you can't collect it.

I disagree. First, because we are talking about groups of the less important some ones, and Two, that assumption hasn't been proven by research. Rarely do game designers look effectively. Wolfhag has looked and found a great deal. I have found that most of the time folks say something can't be collected, it can if you look, and know what you are looking for.

Instead of guess I'd say imagine…

Which you are free to do, but if you are representing something else like the real world, past of present, the imagination [and creativity] is in how to mimic that reality with a game system, not imagining up something you call history because you have no information and assume there is some basic 'background.'

That has been my experience and that's my opinion. I'd be glad to talk about the methods for dealing with both a lack of information, and how to ask effective research questions around the simulation needs.

There are a good deal that we don't know about historical events. That lack of information isn't a road block to creating an historically accurate simulation--it's a common problem in all areas of simulation design--not enough data. There are a lot of methods for doing solving that problem.

Macladdie

happily, the snow wasn't bad at all. I was able to get down to my MIL's 99th birthday.

G6
That's good to hear and congratulations to her.

I think we've gone off on a lot of tangent. In part because we are designing games for different reasons.

We're also going in too many different directions at once now I feel and discussing. Or defending ideas that really we only suplimentry to other more important points.

I brought in FFFPS because, I think we we were discussing what laid behind behaviours.

And we were discussing whether that had value beyond looking it things based on data from a specific periods.

We may not have data for the specific thing in period but we can use it from other sources. And use it to see if usjng it replicates what we see in period. Like the work done modelling group dynamics used to look at medieval battles. Or group dynamics and groups behaviour in insects to look at hoplite battles

So if the games i find the outcomes are not completely different then I can say I'm not complete wrong.

What ever model I use, FFFPS (not that I think it can be used in game viably) of my actions and fight some Naps actions and they bear no correspondence to the results you showed above then I know my system is not working and I need to go back to the drawing board.

My issue is ifbwe have to have the data first then we run in to problems in many cases because as you said its not there. So what do we do? Well most designers reconfigure dice games with some period packing around It. Which doesn't interst me. So I left to DIY and look for an approach that fits better

So when i'm designing a game for fun, based on what I'm interested in and becuase designing and playing gets me thinking generally and specifically and gives me potential insights.

I remember digging up data on wounds in Vietnam for the game I was designing to make it more accurate and while it was it didn't do anything for the game. Because in the game what was important was that someone was wia and needed evac and how soon that evac came compared to how long a casualty had.

Oh and as you brought it up. Wolfhags info about people sheltering in trenches or units under fire. The issue with the FFFPS is it doesn't hold up so well when not dealing with personal threat. Artillery might as well be thunder or an earthquake as far as our amygdala knows. But hiding laying in the trench fits most closely to Submit.

As to regiments standing under fire that makes me look at the 15 15 70 model of groups under stress where the default is 15% panic 15% do something useful and 70% look around and do what the other "monkeys" around them are doing. So if enough people around you are standing there you stand etc

Now is that useful in designing a game system? To me it is because while I may not use it directly I'm genrally asking my self, why does something happen.

That may not make for "conventional" or easy game design… but it keeps me engaged. 😉
There's a lot we don't know indeed, known knowns, known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

link

Game design is taking a complex system and makes it playable.
Nick Bradbeer

I'd like to ask Richard Feynman why the chicken crossed the road.

Wolfhag

Because it had to be somewhere..

It was already somewhere before it crossed the road.

Wolfhag

Else…. stillness is death

If be more interested in asking why were never happy with our rules.

My point there was that trying to replicate FoW on the table for the player may not be possible without causing other issues, so we might look to replicate how FoW affects the units under our control.

This is from the Marine Corps Warfighting document:

Another attribute of war is uncertainty. We might argue that uncertainty is just one of many sources of friction, but because it is such a pervasive trait of war, we will treat it singly. All actions in war take place in an atmosphere of uncertainty, or the "fog of war." Uncertainty pervades battle in the form of unknowns about the enemy, about the environment, and even about the friendly situation. While we try to reduce these unknowns by gathering information, we must realize that we cannot eliminate them—or even come close. The very nature of war makes certainty impossible; all actions in war will be based on incomplete, inaccurate, or even contradictory information.

In keeping with the tactical level, there are already several ways to portray the FoW and uncertainty in the game.

Since it is about information gathering, the pre-game scenario can designate known enemy locations from air photo recon, Elint, patrols, minefields, poor roads, etc.

The side with air superiority can have an active air observation plane updating enemy locations via radio during the entire game. The defender should have some AA unit.

Units (normally AT guns and infantry) in the treeline in LOS of the enemy can be concealed and not spotted until they fire or are within a certain range. Before the game, the player with these concealed units puts a small piece of paper with a number corresponding to the unit under the terrain piece. When revealed, he places the unit on the table.

Vehicles can be concealed if they are over 25m into a treeline with no LOS to the enemy or behind a building or obstacle. When they move to the edge of the treeline and in LOS they can immediately be spotted. Use the same marking as AT guns.

If you don't know what is on the other side of the hill, send a recon unit but don't skyline as you'll be spotted right away.

Not sure if there is an enemy in the location? Use recon by fire.

Lack of communication causes uncertainty. Radios don't always work and break down too.

You could set up your table using a grid system along the short (letters) and long (numbers) sides of the table. Players can keep track of moving units without needing a double-blind map, but they would need a GM to determine when a mutual LOS will be established. I think 100m grids would work. This would also assist in calling in artillery.

Most units move in a column with spacing. Vehicles normally are spaced 50-100m. As the column moves into the enemy LOS only the first vehicle is placed on the table. After it moves the amount of spacing the next vehicle in line is placed on the table, etc.

How does it affect the units under your control?
If you don't know where the enemy is you will get ambushed more easily. If you don't do a route recon you move into a minefield. The player needs to use recon units and patrols to "fight for information." Moving fast decreases your situational awareness so you'll need to slow down. Recon by fire is good but you have a limited amount of ammo and it can reduce your rate of advance allowing the enemy to maneuver on you and bring up reserves. I'm sure there are other ways you can think of.

All of the above can be validated historically and need a minimum of special rules.

None of this is new or earth-shattering. I've used most of the above examples in my games.

Wolfhag

If be more interested in asking why were never happy with our rules.

I think it is because no one has the same amount of knowledge or experience so perceive combat action differently. Also, there are some aspects we feel are more important that we want to portray that others think we don't. There is no standard or governing authority to hold game designers to either and there are a variety of ways to do it.

In reality, combat is a simultaneous time-competitive environment with each unit, individual, or crew using their natural OODA Decision Loop to evaluate and perform actions which is how the action is actually parsed on the battlefield. Only computers can simulate this.

As game designers, all we can hope to do is have a system and special effects that are good enough for the players to buy into and use their imagination to create a level of realism. We can't even agree on the definition of the key factors of game design and warfare. These discussions could go on forever without changing anyone's mind.

I know someone is going to disagree with me and come up with some obscure example or talk about how they "feel" it is all wrong. I don't deal with people's feelings as I'm not a professional.

Wolfhag

Else…. stillness is death

Stillness is only a subjective reality to the perceiver as there is no stillness in the Quantum Universe or molecular level. However, I'm unsure how they would react in an Absolute Zero environment and I doubt if we ever know. But then in the Absolute Zero environment, you would not be observing.

Wolfhag

From Feb 27:

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.

I don't know how the italics happened but ignore them.

In my system, they do make historical decisions: Move, shoot, react, use a rangefinder, snap shoot, halt fire, aim at a specific location if qualified, angle hull for better protection and ricochet chance, use reverse slope defense, evade/jink, etc. Pretty much whatever is in the manual they can perform with most actions/orders taking an amount of time to execute.

Whether a historical outcome is achieved depends on their decisions. The system does not force them to make specific decisions and allows them to make the wrong decision or use the wrong tactics which happens quite often.

They don't make non-historical decisions like activating units, using command points, turn interrupts, random initiatives, players determining the sequence of action, etc.

Wolfhag

FoW
It was as much a rhetorical thought.
I agree and have used most of those at some point.

In line with my other thoughts what we seen in games. In part because of the way they operate more broadly, are effects on the player. They restrict the players info or the players ability to get a unit do what they want. Rather than their behaviour.

I like the OODA cycle. As you say its hard to implement in a TT game. Or at least in the way it operates in RL. Limited time for the player to make decisions, as well as others make for a simulacrum of it and get players to think about the issues associated with it.

"I know someone is going to disagree with me and come up with some obscure example or talk about how they "feel" it is all wrong. I don't deal with people's feelings as I'm not a professional."

We all deal with the feelings of others. The question is Do theirs align enough with others. Feelings about something are valid. Expecting someone else to compromise theirs to fit with ours isnt

Hence stillness is death… for us at least and then we call go back to being star dust.

Giving the player historical conditions gives constraints/opertunities and allows them to think about why what happend did. But it may not always produce historical outcomes. Now if it doesn't ever, then there is an issue somewhere.

In part because we are designing games for different reasons.

We're also going in too many different directions at once now I feel and discussing. Or defending ideas that really we only suplimentry to other more important points.

G6:
I'm not. I am still focused on what can be simulated with a closed procedural system like a wargame. Several topics have been raised, but they are all about being represented in a closed procedural system. There are ways to do that and then there are ways that can never work.

I brought in FFFPS because, I think we we were discussing what laid behind behaviours.

And we were discussing whether that had value beyond looking it things based on data from a specific periods.

Yes, we were. And what I was saying is that guessing at or attempting to discover the motives based on a general set of concepts, still gets you to the same place, particularly representing group behaviors:

The game system will represent actions in response to circumstances. Whether you find out what those actions were based on research and statistical probabilities, or build a conceptual understanding of the FFFPS motives behind the behaviors. In the end you will still have to compare your results/mechanics against the evidence, whether sparse or detailed. But only if the goal is recreating/representing/simulating/modeling/illustrating real world dynamics.

There are pitfalls in either approach. The one where a conceptual template is fashioned and then the historical record is fitted into the template can lead to skewing history to fit the model rather than the other way around.

But hiding laying in the trench fits most closely to Submit.

As to regiments standing under fire that makes me look at the 15 15 70 model of groups under stress where the default is 15% panic 15% do something useful and 70% look around and do what the other "monkeys" around them are doing. So if enough people around you are standing there you stand etc

Now is that useful in designing a game system? To me it is because while I may not use it directly I'm generally asking my self, why does something happen.

Fine, and you may or may not find out. Simulations are built to represent and compared to known information. Asking why something happened will either be built into the simulation from the start, or it won't.

The link is a discussion of why magnets attract and repel. Simulation games like wargames are not why answering machines. They are dynamic when, where and when machines. The 'whys' can be inferred or discovered through analysis, but they aren't build on the why. Research uses of simulations show this. A simulation can be built to model an assembly-line process or how Neutron Stars operate, but those simulations are built on known whys. If either don't match reality, then the questions are why, but that is the only way simulation can work as a 'why.'

That may not make for "conventional" or easy game design… but it keeps me engaged. 😉
There's a lot we don't know indeed, known knowns, known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

As I said. Simulations are built on knowns. Garbage in/garbage out. There are a lot of ways to change those unknowns to knowns in designing simulation wargames, but simulations are never based on unknowns.

Simulations are often used to discover unknowns by repeatedly changing the inputs until the result models known reality,

But there you are back to what you can find out, know, collecting evidence to use as the reality template.

FOW is what the participants don't know and attempt to find out.

In a wargame, that means keeping information from the players while providing at least some ways of reducing the unknowns.

I haven't seen any studies on what experienced commanders go into battles resigned to not knowing and having to anticipate and what they do organizationally or at the moment to reduce the unknowns.

I know how Napoleonic generals 'handled' such issues, but that is 200+ years ago

Macladdie
I'm not. I am still focused on what can be simulated with a closed procedural system like a wargame

G6
Ok. So were talking at cross purposes.

As ive said before we're doing games for our reasons.

Excluding just the fun aspect
Wargames can be used for
Training
Learning
Data
Amoung other things. These are definitions from wargame designers for professionals who I've also seen work on missing or incomplete data.

I haven't found a set of rules where concept and execution match what I want from a game, I have to presume were all in similar situations given were on a design forum.

My reason for posting the link was no about magnets. The Why is little to do with magnets its about what happens when we ask why and the default assumptions we bring to anything.
In another clip he also talks about imagination.

Me being interested in things we don't have data for leaves me in a situation where I'm experimenting with new things.
Part of my additonal frustration with other rules is i dont enjoy playing them.

And as I've said I'll look at what results come out and if they aren't matching what I from the period then I'll know what I've done isn't working.

Not what you want to do? But it's what I'm doing.

I'm aware of what FoW in game terms.
But I'm also awre that TT play is often stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to what they need to do and what they can do. And I question whether there are other effective ways to do things.

Again I was listening to a professional designer saying that they ended up not using umpire and computer moderated games for several reasons, but significant ones were that they both reduced participant "engagement" with the situations rather defeating the point of the exercises goal.

It's one thing to recognise how things were done or 'handled' (or not). It's something else to represent that on the TT, in a way that enages those participating.

I recognised that I've often drawn to bej interested in things that I then discover are not well supported by available information, games follow that pattern. I also recognise that there's no reason for others to agree with my interest either.. 🤔🙃

Macladdie
I am still focused on what can be simulated with a closed procedural system like a wargame.

G6
Ok. So were talking at cross purposes.

G6:
If you say so. I thought we were both talking about wargame design. You had particular things in mind, which I was simply pointing out your interest in 'why' is a pre-design issue and not something that a wargame/simulation can answer without the designer answering it first.

As ive said before we're doing games for our reasons<q.

And as I've said before, regardless of the reasons for designing games, if the idea is to replicate reality/history in some fashion with a game system, there are ways to do that with validity and not using those methods don't get you in the paint, as it were.

I am more than happy to work with your reasons for designing a wargame. I have just been talking about the how.

Excluding just the fun aspect
Wargames can be used for
Training
Learning
Data
Amoung other things. These are definitions from wargame designers for professionals who I've also seen work on missing or incomplete data.

Yep. There are methods for doing that and still keeping the system historically/realistically accurate.

I haven't found a set of rules where concept and execution match what I want from a game, I have to presume were all in similar situations given were on a design forum.

To some extent, yes. I play a lot of games. I enjoy them for what they were designed for. The only exception are those which proport to simulate some aspect of history.

y reason for posting the link was no about magnets. The Why is little to do with magnets its about what happens when we ask why and the default assumptions we bring to anything. In another clip he also talks about imagination.

*Gasp* Imagination in science? I am all for asking questions and questioning 'default assumptions', like assuming there is not information for 'X.' That is a pre-design activity, not a wargame design effort, even though the game system can be and will be based on the answers to those questions.

Me being interested in things we don't have data for leaves me in a situation where I'm experimenting with new things.

You keep saying that. What topic exactly are you saying doesn't have data for?

Part of my additonal frustration with other rules is i dont enjoy playing them.

And as I've said I'll look at what results come out and if they aren't matching what I from the period then I'll know what I've done isn't working.

Makes perfect sense. There is a methodology for that process… to determine what isn't working as a simulation. It is a different process for the same system working/not working as a game.

Not what you want to do? But it's what I'm doing.

Well, I am more than happy to talk about what you are doing. I have asked several questions along those lines.

I'm aware of what FoW in game terms.
But I'm also aware that TT play is often stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to what they need to do and what they can do. And I question whether there are other effective ways to do things.

All game types and simulation types have limitations. That is where imagination comes into play. You identify what you want to portray and then imagine how that might be done.

Again I was listening to a professional designer saying that they ended up not using umpire and computer moderated games for several reasons, but significant ones were that they both reduced participant "engagement" with the situations rather defeating the point of the exercises goal.

Okay. I have seen some computer moderated games provide a lot of engagement. All umpire and computer moderated systems are not equal and neither is 'engagement.'

It's one thing to recognise how things were done or 'handled' (or not). It's something else to represent that on the TT, in a way that enages those participating.

Not sure what you mean by that. A wargame usually involves two goals:
1. Accurately simulate some aspect of history or reality, and
2. be an engaging game.

So, yes, there are 'two things' to consider in the end.

I recognised that I've often drawn to bej interested in things that I then discover are not well supported by available information, games follow that pattern. I also recognise that there's no reason for others to agree with my interest either.. 🤔🙃

Fine, would you identify one thing you are specifically interested in and what questions you feel can't be answered because there isn't enough information? That seems to be the place to start. And of course, we are focused on TT games.

We can start from there on your quest, not mine. I'll just suggest how your goals might be achieved. *smile*

I mean cross purposes in that I am and we have been talking about our own objectives and at others as though there is a way to "do wargame design"

. I'm all for validity but as I think I've said now multiple times I'm not bothered if they happen more frequently than we understand or belive they would have in reality.

I'm not interested in simulating everything, I'm interested in simulating the experience of dealing with those things when they happen.

Also while I'm appreciative of the offer of help in the on going journey of designing my rules, I've not been looking for that and thought we'd just been discussing different approaches. Another reason why it felt we've been talking are cross purposes. 🤔

The discussion has helped of itself as its in places forced me to think on what I mean with certain things and that while something may seem clear to me it isn't as clear to others or at least my way of thinking about it isn't.
🫣🤔

I mean cross purposes in that I am and we have been talking about our own objectives and at others as though there is a way to "do wargame design"

. I'm all for validity but as I think I've said now multiple times I'm not bothered if they happen more frequently than we understand or belive they would have in reality.

I'm not interested in simulating everything, I'm interested in simulating the experience of dealing with those things when they happen.

Also while I'm appreciative of the offer of help in the on going journey of designing my rules, I've not been looking for that and thought we'd just been discussing different approaches. Another reason why it felt we've been talking are cross purposes. 🤔

G6:

I guess we have been talking at cross purposes. I haven't been talking about 'my approach'. I have been talking about how simulations, any simulation is created. I have given some examples from my development of rules, but only as an example of how simulations are created.

You and I may have different ideas about how to design a internal combustion engine and different goals for that design. Even so, there are some basic methods, parts and functions that any design is going to have to employ to create an internal combustion engine. It is a technical issue, with a common set of challenges and solutions, not one of different goals or 'ways.'

It is the same with a simulation, particularly one that is a closed procedural system designed to mimic some real world environment. That is what I have been talking about.

The discussion has helped of itself as its in places forced me to think on what I mean with certain things and that while something may seem clear to me it isn't as clear to others or at least my way of thinking about it isn't.

Okay, glad to hear it. Again, your and my 'ways' of thinking about simulating warfare may be different, goals may be different. None-the-less, both have to come back to the same technology to create a functional simulation--simply because that is what both are trying to create. Period. That isn't a matter of an opinion or one of many different 'ways.'

And that is all I was offering help with. I created all sorts of educational, entertainment and training simulations and games in my business. Board games, role playing, paper and pencil, activities. That was the experience I am willing to share, have tried to share.

I think it would provide you with tools you could use, make your efforts more efficient. Your questions, goals, not anyone else's. Simulation / game design is based on a technology that has developed into a major career, with majors, Masters and Doctorates. [Since the 1960s] There is a whole raft of companies that do nothing but design simulations for various businesses, research and training arenas… let alone entertainment. The half century of development and research into simulations can provide the tools to do what you want to do.

The start is to ask your questions about FOW, or morale or whatever, and 1. See how the question can be framed to get the game information you need, and 2. frame the question to be more specific in the mechanics created.

One thing I admire about Wolfhag's rules is that process is one he obviously used to create his design.

If not, that's okay too. I can promise though, if you are serious about creating a game that simulates what you want it to, you will run into the issues created by any such effort. And the answers are what simulation/game technology answers, including the 'problem' of not enough information or 'engagement.'

Macladdie
I guess we have been talking at cross purposes.

G6
😀 Well I didnt say it for no reason.😉

Macladdie
I haven't been talking about 'my approach'.

G6
It is your approach even if you completely adhering to the principles of simulations design. If we agree what those actually are.

Macladdie
I have been talking about how simulations, any simulation is created.

G6
I agree that principles apply. My job depends on them and I teach them and get people to use them tk function under stress.
But I'd never claim that it was the only way. I'd say they are the best 😉 but I can only say that with sureity for me and then things change… the ones that are resistant to change can be more sure. The variety of course is in the applications

Macladdie
I have given some examples from my development of rules, but only as an example of how simulations are created.

G6
All simulations? What's the purpose of the simulation. Simulation? We seem to go around what that word actually means.
Given "wargame" designers don't agree completely let alone designers of various other simulation creators.
And I'd hoped I made it clear by now I'm not interested in what I'd consider a pure simulation. I'm looking at creating an experience. That experience need to mesh with what we understand of reality. Up to a point.

Macladdie
both have to come back to the same technology to create a functional simulation--simply because that is what both are trying to create. Period. That isn't a matter of an opinion or one of many different 'ways.'

G6
This comes across as both absolute and unclear. What do you mean by technology?
But I find the assertion that there is only, The Way too dogmatic.

Macladdie
And that is all I was offering help with. I created all sorts of educational, entertainment and training simulations and games in my business. Board games, role playing, paper and pencil, activities. That was the experience I am willing to share, have tried to share.

G6
And I said I appreciated the offer, even though I didn't ask for it.
I too design training/learning, experiential entertainment. As well as being involved inresearch in to history weapons armour and how they were used and functioned. As well , tying all that together with studying the psychological and physiological aspects of violence and decision making under stress
I've also been playing Games such as we've been discussing as well as others for 40 odd years and looking at the issues and tinkering and designing.

Which is why I've been discussing things from my point and trying to get a better grip on others to either strengthen my current thoughts or to look at néw ways.

I'm aware that people do all those things you mentioned. I've looked at lots of the workm read books and listened to presentations and lectures. I don't deny thar expertise. But I also know that expertise in a field is only one part of a puzzle.
I spend time training and working with actors. Many of who have told me they learnt more about acting I'm class, nominally not an acting class, than they have in acting classes from people with decades of experience I doing and teaching.

Macladdie
is to ask your questions about FOW, or morale or whatever, and 1. See how the question can be framed to get the game information you need, and 2. frame the question to be more specific in the mechanics created

G6
To say I've not done this? I've being doing a poor job of explaining myself

Macladdie
One thing I admire about Wolfhag's rules is that process is one he obviously used to create his design.

G6
1! 😃😀😉
I admire a lot about what Wolfhag has done with his tank rules. Using OODA etc
I also admire his stringent approach to his own process and acceptance that's his and doesn't have to be for everyone.

But as exciting as it was to see his use of OODA I see that ot functions very well within the realm of relatively small enagement tank actions where we can get a data set that allows that to happen

Macladdie
If not, that's okay too. I can promise though, if you are serious about creating a game that simulates what you want it to, you will run into the issues created by any such effort. And the answers are what simulation/game technology answers, including the 'problem' of not enough information or 'engagement.'

G6
Again you make assumptions/presumptions

What is "serious"

What is a simulation and if what we mean is the same and that I actually then want to "simulate" something as you consider a simulation

That I've not been running into issues that my answers already solve, at least enough to get to where I want to currently be

That "game technology" is a "thing"

As a thing it is sure to be the only tool set to solve the problems that I want to solve.

I "need" assistance to solve it and if I don't then were back to the "serious" issue.

Again I appreciate the offers of help. And while we're discussing ideas it's great, debating dogma less so.

It is your approach even if you completely adhering to the principles of simulations design. If we agree what those actually are.

G6:
The point being, it isn't something I created, but just basic principles--and methodologies. It isn't 'my' approach to simulation design as if the basics are simply a personal preference.

I agree that principles apply. My job depends on them and I teach them and get people to use them tk function under stress. But I'd never claim that it was the only way. I'd say they are the best.

This I don't understand. Principles aren't the same as the methodologies, technologies based on those principles. If you do understand and teach them, then I don't understand the struggle you seem to have with 1. knowing where to start to achieve your goals and 2. The problem with 'not enough information.' I guess you are going to have to explain that to me.

All simulations? What's the purpose of the simulation. Simulation? We seem to go around what that word actually means. Given "wargame" designers don't agree completely let alone designers of various other simulation creators.

I think a lot of what 'wargamer' designers don't agree on is because they don't want to. If they did, it would demystify the 'magic' and make the winning approaches accessible. Jaime Escalante, the famous teacher, watched the actor Edward Olmos after several months in Escalante's class 'be him' in the movie "Stand and Deliver." He was shocked. Olmos was using 'his' magic moves. If anyone could learn them, they weren't his personal magic anymore.

Another reason, is if there was an agreed on definition of Simulation, then their validity could be better identified. Not something most game designers want their customers to do. It's the old adage: "If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost." That, and they don't know enough about simulations to make coherent statements about the topic.

It is not all that hard to define. All simulations are dynamic models of something else. Their validity is wholly dependent on their ability to mimic that chosen topic. And the various purposes the simulation tool is used for doesn't change that. That is their value. Simulations attempt to Model/replicate/mimic/represent/recreate something else.

For simulation games, the MIT definition in their textbook "Rules of Play" is:

"A simulation is a procedural representation of 'reality.'… There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world."

Games are artificial environments with internal rules, dynamics, and goals. A simulation game recreates a specific environment with internal rules, dynamics, and goals which mimic that reality or topic.

What is so hard about that? What other definition is possible and still remain within the definition of 'to simulate?'

Actors simulate, and how closely their performance is recognized as 'real' behavior and emotions, their simulation is validated.

It is not dogma to suggest there are just so many ways around what simulating with a game system is all about, no more than to say there are technical aspects of combustion engine design that are integral, can not be avoided, and functional methods for designing them.

What is a simulation and if what we mean is the same and that I actually then want to "simulate" something as you consider a simulation.

A technology is built on definitions that 'work.' They help the designer where he wants to go. That is one reason why they are often called 'working definitions.' They tend to stay definitions because the address issues that are inherent in the effort to design.

That I've not been running into issues that my answers already solve, at least enough to get to where I want to currently be.

Okay. Not sure what you are saying here. I simply got the sense you were struggling with design issues and I saw what I thought could help.

That "game technology" is a "thing"

It is 'a thing' in the sense that it recognized and exists outside any one person's 'way' of doing game design.

As a thing it is sure to be the only tool set to solve the problems that I want to solve.

There are lots of tools in that technology bag. To apply them, it requires some clarity on specific goals. A hammer is pretty useless if we can't identify what we want built. There are tools for achieving that clarity.

Games, regardless of the medium, have to be very specific as they are procedural systems.

Macladdie
The point being, it isn't something I created, but just basic principles--and methodologies. It isn't 'my' approach to simulation design as if the basics are simply a personal preference.

G6
I didn't say you did, did I? 🤔
Adhering to a set of principles techniques or technologies etc its still yours when you're applying it and not mine, as we've been discussing

Macladdie
This I don't understand. Principles aren't the same as the methodologies, technologies based on those principles.

G6
Again I'm not sure when I said they were. I wasn't sure what you meant when your kept refering to the technology. But it would also seem that I'm happy to keep using different methodologies.

Macladdie
1. knowing where to start to achieve your goals.

G6
I don't belive I said I struggled with where to start. We seemed disagree about where you though i should start.

Macladdie
2. The problem with 'not enough information.' I guess you are going to have to explain that to me.

G6
I belive this seemed from my interest in things you said would be guesses.

I'll agree on some of thar re war game designers. Though I was referring here to those that develop them for professional audiences.
I genrally listen to them now rather designers of commercial wargames.

As a teacher i want to see the student take what they've learnt an make it theirs and be better than me. I can see often who has taught someone by a number of things… they copy the teacher. They do a disservice because they are copying traits not principles and the are just that a copy.

Macladdie
All simulations are dynamic models of something else.

"A simulation is a procedural representation of 'reality.'… There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world."

What is so hard about that? What other definition is possible and still remain within the definition of 'to simulate?'

G6
Nothing is hard about it… until we tighten or change the focus.
How we then simulate something changes. The methods or technologies, yes.
But with an agreed base definition of simulation

Macladdie
Actors simulate, and how closely their performance is recognized as 'real' behavior and emotions, their simulation is validated.

G6
They can but its over simplified. They behave like the character. They make the audience feel an emotional response and that can be separate from whatever they are feeling.

We'd have then to say a work of fiction is a simulation.

But then we've spread the net so wide we clearly aren't talk about the same technology methods or even principles.

Macladdie
technology is built on definitions that 'work.' They help the designer where he wants to go. That is one reason why they are often called 'working definitions.' They tend to stay definitions because the address issues that are inherent in the effort to design.

G6
This while true has issues as like simulations doesn't help as I was left questioning whether you mean tech as in computers etc.

Macladdie
I simply got the sense you were struggling with design issues and I saw what I thought could help

G6
No.. I'm unclear what gave you that impression especially as I said several times in wasn't looking for help but was discussing or explaining my own ideas and goals.

Madladdie
It is 'a thing' in the sense that it recognized and exists outside any one person's 'way' of doing game design.

G6
As you had introduced technology in to things and in was unsure what you meant by it

Madladdie
A hammer is pretty useless if we can't identify what we want built. There are tools for achieving that clarity.

G6
A hammer is useless for any number of reasons. But not being able to identify why we need to hammer is the primary one. It's also useless if we've only got screws. Or if it's the wrong type of hammer.

My goal is to use "new" tools to address issues I have with mechanics and the experience I want. Or when I've wanted to explore theories for which I don't have direct information.

Reading these seemingly endless threads with the same names, it occurs to me that they would be better occupied reading the late Peter Perla's "The Art of Wargaming", and reflecting on its contents. Then they should perhaps read it again to ensure that they have understood its basic premise.

After doing that, a thorough reading of Philip Sabin's "Simulating War" might also be useful.

That way, we may all be enlightened instead of being drowned in half-formed theorising.

Just a thought.

One of Perla's steps is "Validate models, data, and scenario." The topic of the discussion is "Validating your model."

But I do agree it's getting a little pedantic. It seems like when we answer one question it leads to two additional questions, repeat, etc.

Wolfhag

Bill,
I'll buy a one year membership if you let UshCha out of the DH.

Wolfhag

🤔🫣
You're of course free to not read the posts. 🤔😀 there's plenty I don't go back to or even start, I wasn't aware we were supposed to read all threads. Sorry

If I overlooked the rule against half formed theorising or pendantiry 😉😃, which given the nature of wargamers seems a little problematic, I apologise.

Though I agree we've been running in circles for quite while now.

I hope that doesn't come across as a question… at least not one that needs and answer

G6:

I apologize if I assumed you were looking for answers to a design problem. This is the kind of exchange that led me to that assumption:

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

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.

Adhering to a set of principles techniques or technologies etc its still yours when you're applying it and not mine, as we've been discussing.

A technology is a universal set of systemic practices or methods that apply regardless of the goal. The color wheel, color mixing and perspective are art technologies. they are used in specific ways, including skewed for particular effects, but never change. Artists wouldn't say they are using 'different' technologies if they ignored perspective.

We'd have then to say a work of fiction is a simulation.

But then we've spread the net so wide we clearly aren't talk about the same technology methods or even principles.

Not really. Novels and movies are simulations of 'something else.' They are static because no matter how often you run/read them, the events, decisions and outcomes are exactly the same. Dynamic simulations like games have the simulated environment and the decisions and subsequent events are created by the players. Research simulations are like that, the researcher injecting different information to get different outcomes.

The specific medium requires its own technologies too, but there are similarities between them all because all are attempting to simulate:

In her book Writing Fiction, another creative writing teacher, Janet Burroway, wrote that

reading fiction allows us to feel strong emotions "without paying for them." [like simulations] This is what evocation is all about. When you get the reader to laugh, you're evoking merriment; when you get the reader to sweat and turn on all the lights, you're evoking fear. You don't just allow readers to visualize themselves in certain situations, but you prompt them to engage with the situation emotionally in the same way they would if they were actually experiencing it in real life.

". . .actually experiencing it in real life." Isn't that what wargame designers are trying to do? The author and other writers go on to describe the methods for creating that evocation. It reads very much like your efforts to evoke player responses, G6.

Point being, there are universal simulation methodologies [addressing needs and challenges with the task] across mediums, computer software to paper and pencil. Some, like game design are specific. The thing about technologies is that 1. they develop to solve specific problems in a task and 2. and those problems/challenges are inherent in the task and unavoidable.

My goal is to use "new" tools to address issues I have with mechanics and the experience I want. Or when I've wanted to explore theories for which I don't have direct information.

Well, I wasn't clear that you had reached your goal. Sorry. I was simply pointing out that if you haven't tried or know about all the 'old' tools, you 1. might have missed some opportunities, 2. be reinventing the wheel, and 3. regardless of the tools, will still face the same challenges the 'old' technologies were meant to address and still exist if you are trying to simulate anything.

I feel fortunate to have attended simulation conferences in the 1990s and 2000s when a lot of this technology was being hammered out among a dynamic mix of researchers, production simulators, military men, managers, engineers, game designers and trainers. One of the things they did, had to do do, what find the common ground, the universals to simulating to simply discuss it together as well as identify the differences in needs and medium requirements.

I know that those conclusions and resultant technologies helped me immensely while creating training and educational simulation/games using a variety of mediums.

Reading these seemingly endless threads with the same names, it occurs to me that they would be better occupied reading the late Peter Perla's "The Art of Wargaming", and reflecting on its contents. Then they should perhaps read it again to ensure that they have understood its basic premise.

After doing that, a thorough reading of Philip Sabin's "Simulating War" might also be useful.

I have communicated with Peter P. about game design and Philip quotes me in his book.

That way, we may all be enlightened instead of being drowned in half-formed theorising.

Well, I can imagine how it feels like drowning reading it all, and seems heavily pedantic, for that matter with all the repetition, but it isn't theorizing on my part, let alone half-formed.

I don't see a request for help there and I'd also hoped my several times saying I wasn't looking for help would have made that clear.. hey ho

To avoid annoying more visitors to the thread I'll avoid going down the art route. I didn't mention I went to art school and count a few artists are good friends.

You brought Technology in to the discussion. Again I'm not sure it's worth debating it.

So to be clear an actor is simulating but the movie they are in isn't.. because it doesn't change? What about the release of the directors cut? 😬
This then I presume means then a play is a simulation as it changes to a degree based on its self and the audience.

I still disagree when I read a book or what a film it isn't the same and neither am I and the effect on me.. as the audience, on which you said the actors ability was based changes.

Anyway that's another side diacussion for which this is probably not the time or place. 🫢

Macladdie
It reads very much like your efforts to evoke player responses, G6.

Point being, there are universal simulation methodologies

G6
Yes… I work in narrative so yes.
But then again the methodologies are what they are but are not fixed as the only way

Macladdie
Well, I wasn't clear that you had reached your goal.

G6
I hoped I'd made that clear.. but clearly not 🫢 as I had that I've been at this for a long time. While I'm aware and have spent some time with the recognised aspects of in this case, wargame design, I've nor felt following recognised approaches was giving me what I wanted

I don't digress further with my own history but I've been involved in a broad range of various activities and spent time around an eclectic spread of people, scientists, military business, historians and creatives. Its played a part in what and how I'm doing what I'm doing.

Macladdie
, but it isn't theorizing on my part, let alone half-formed.

G6
That'll just be me then! 🤔😉😃😉

G6:
Enough talk, get to work, and show us what you've got. Let me know if I can help out.

Wolfhag

Just me? 😉🤔
I have…

I will, thanks 👍🏻

G6:
I saw you state that you were attempting something, trying to create a particular set of player challenges and folks were offering suggestions, including me.

Does that mean you were asking for help? No. That was my assumption, sorry.

I have been gaming since I was a teenager, and have designed wargames and a whole raft of training and educational simulations and games for more than forty years, during the 'rise' of simulations.

Like the military, acting, visual arts, and teaching, simulation and game design contains some 'basics.' The concepts, skills and methods that are foundational to the tasks addressed by those disciplines and arts. Ignore them and any additional efforts are less efficient and prone to be stymied by inherent challenges in those tasks.

As those various professions and vocations develop, those basics become better defined and at times added to through experience and changing demands.

When those basics become established, they can be called technologies because they have a systematic approach.

When those 'basics' are ignored for whatever reason, seen as to 'restrictive', take too much time to learn, or simply 'how to's never looked for, certain things repeatedly show up.

Terms are never commonly defined, like simulation, game, validation, realism, game structure, narrative, black box, result-oriented, recreation, representation, historically accurate etc. etc. It is all totally subjective mush. Instead you have such deep game design questions as 'feel', 'flavor' and "what do you think 'crunchy' means?" and other so, so meaningful design questions.

Without any basics, design efforts will see the same design problems continually repeated without any solutions, or unexamined conventions like the 6 to 12 inch infantry movement regardless of scale. The problems are seen as absolute roadblocks instead of solvable challenges or issues with the chosen game medium. You also see many participants never finding any games or simulations quite satisfactory, always hunting for the perfect design. Those, lots of variations.

This is partly because most wargame design are general mystery meat. A customer and player has no idea what went into the design and little idea of what they are getting out historically/realistically. So, the players themselves make it up, though that is unsatisfactory. So, the hunt goes on for the "One true game."

I am designing my own game. I have described some of it here. I do know that if and when it is made public in final form, it will change nothing, even when including all those basics. I think Wolfhag has already discovered that to some degree. I am sure that is one reason UshCha tends to require players to know the tactics/history/organization before playing.

Art is not all subjective and science is not all objective, which is why historically it has always been military art AND science. The same is true with game and simulation design. A basic is knowing which is which and where each is best applied.

One last flog of the horse.
Like you I've been doing this since I was a teenager. 40 or so years so none of this is new. And while very aware of basics and fundamentals the only things I personally ignore are those that aren't getting me closer to my goals.
😉👍🏻

😉👍🏻