"Detail and Knowledge" Topic

We have been doing a few changes to the rules to reflect command and control issue..
I guess in part it's what you want out of a game and how well you know your subject. Even as a teenager I hated rules that did not have at least a bit of detail on the vehicles like tanks as without it they did not represent real tanks to me. We have been working on the new lists AGAIN and realised the way the system was being implemented did not reflect the variation of flexibility of response possible by the presence or absence of radios. To us this is vital it adds to the "fog of war" on the basis that the presence or not of radios massively effects the ability of units to react quickly to a rapidly changing tactical situation. It's no wonder that Hobart from the very start wanted every tank to have a radio. Try playing an Italian tank company with only one radio at company level and relying on either "follow me" and in some situations semaphore signals.
As another example . If you have no idea what a smoke discharger are and how they are used you probably don't want rules that cover their use. If you do know how effective they can be in some circumstances you would not want to ignore it.
At higher levels of command logistics increasingly becomes the issue, but if you are "blissfully unaware of this" then the lack of fidelity won't worry you and you will happily not consider it.
So is the level of, let's say Fidelity, rather than detail, which some players use as a term of denigration as not being useful, dependent of your knowledge and interest in the period you are gaming.
Perhaps allied to this topic, can you really take seriously an opinion that a game is "realistic" if the player's knowledge of the period is minimal? He may think a game is realistic but in absolute terms his opinion may not be well founded in fact. As always you have to assess the source of the information.

Fidelity, is not separate from resolution. However they need to work in balance with each other.
They can also only be considered in context with what level, we as the player represents and time scale.
In your use of logistics. A squad leader needs to make sure their squad has the supplies it needs to accomplish base mission. In a game at tbe squad level where the duration is a… 5 minutes firefight, after the initial insuring of load out we are unlikely to need to consider the squads logistics.
That changes if the action is longer or is part of an ongoing series of actions. Even then the squad leader isn't nyerested in anything other than getting what is needed for tbe squad, not supply lines supply dumps etc. That's the concern of higher levels.
So resolution. Is adjusting the focus to the level one is playing at.

It's also about fidelity in recognising rbe impact of such things. In Vietnam games I've run in maps. The players represented Battalion commanders. They need to insure logistics supply to their companies or platoons FSB etc otherwise they couldn't fight at full effect. It also meant they need to make sure units needing resupply were in locations where that could take place, for enough time for it to happen. And in doing so made those locations more obvious to the enemy. Risked helos being shot down etc.
Etc. What they weren't concerned about wad the type of logistics as such, as that wouldn't be what they worried about, it's what they had a supply officer for.

Ad to whether a player should know about the period they are playing… well that's a personal choice. My Vietnam games were genrally played by players interested in the war, some had more or less knowledge than others, but it depends. I'd rather play with someone with less knowledge but who engages in the spirit of the expercise than someone who is immersed in the subject but is basically a pain to play with..

Gamesman6 Intresting you have not defined your perfect player. Easy to play with is to me an automatic. Why ever would you play a pain to play with player more than once? So to be honest that seems an irrelivance, as they will be removed from the picture after the first trining game, lets face it we are a hobby so we can chose who we play.

Interesting that you seem not to care whether you players know the period. How will they deal with the complexitiy of planning an engagement tactics if they have no idea how to approach the situation. Players who have fought in the real situation really have a huge advantage they know how it all works even if they have no idea of the rules.
Those types can be given an aid who will simply run the mechaisms for them. However in my experience such folk are a rare privalidge to play not a common player type.

UshCha
Intresting you have not defined your perfect player.

G6 well we weren't talk about it and if we were I don't believe such a thing exists.

Easy to play with is to me an automatic.

G6 sure… but that what's important to me. What they know about a period is irrelevant if don't want to play with them or them with me… what they don't know they can learn.
There's few enough people I want to play with let alone am able to to play with or who want to engage in a game I also want to play in… it makes no sense to add a further constraint that they need some expertise in tbe period… whatever we define that as… its further obstacle to participation.
And as I said if they take part and enjoy the experience of the game and period… they will want to learn more about it.

Gamesman6 The "perfect players is one who is pearsonable and intersted in the period. If you are a good tennis player you want to play folk who are as good as you or better to hone your own skills. While still training up new players to replace exsisting players so the pool of good players is maintained.

Why do you need folk that are intereted in the period? They help to explore aspects of the history that make the gaming interesting, why X or Y was likely to happen, also they help to refine the fedelity of the simulation brining there expertise and knowledge to ensure that within the scope of the system it is the best tehre is.

In addition say with a Tank in my period, they need to understand the basics, what weapons sytems do what an why. In any given circumstance, to know when the going gets tough, what drills to invoke and why. To make credible decions when to stand and when to give ground. That is not the in the gift of a newbie without considerable experience in the real world or on the table.

The rules are not the only key to an effective simulation, the best stress analysis tools in the world will do little in the hands that do not know how to run it effectively.

I understand the factors we need to create an environment to improve. You asked me why I didn't define my perfect player and told you.

Personable and interested in the period seems a loose definition for perfection 🤔 I don't see perfection in that… its the baseline, which I said was important

Again I didn't say you don't need people who are interested the period. Of course one needs that otherwise they are unlikely to keep playing.
your original question was about knowledge, which one would need to define. Play based on interest is more likely to be sustained and that will develop knowledge.
We could also point to the historical counterparts the players represent weren't equally "knowledgeable"
Knowledge like experience develops with exposure.
I'm saying I won't make knowledge an obstacle to play.

Your table and you can decide who you want to play. but I'm happy to teach people.. or rather help them learn and help then gain knowledge.
Another part of my various day jobs.

I can say from my own experience that by playing with friends, Vietnam games it provoked my reading and gaining knowledge about the period.

Again it's one thing to say knowledge is good or preferable. But at what level? And where do we expect people to gain their knowledge. Play after all is nature's way of experiential learning.
I want to play to gain knowledge

UshCha:

I think you are mixing designer knowledge and choices with player knowledge of the topic the designer chooses.

Part of the reason players want detail is because of the lack of explanations and knowledge provided them by the designer. If the designer feels smoke dischargers are important, then he lets the players know about them regardless of whether the players are aware of them or any beliefs of their importance.

Sam Mustafa tells the story of designing a Pacific War game. In playtesting, there was six a step fighter process to determine who wins the encounter. Players never questioned the 'realism.' When Sam discovered that he could get the same chances of success with just one die roll, never changing the player's decision input, the very same players felt the new one-die process was 'unrealistic.'

Why, because the complicated process had more detail, more information about what was happening and why. The one die roll got the same result, but not the same information. Not enough information often leaves the players wondering, thus the process is 'unrealistic.' It is a major reason players can want detailed games.

It all comes down to what the players know about the reality contained in the game and where it is portrayed.

Again it's one thing to say knowledge is good or preferable. But at what level? And where do we expect people to gain their knowledge. Play after all is nature's way of experiential learning. I want to play to gain knowledge.

There is knowledge of what is represented and then knowledge of how to operate successfully in the game environment. If the game environment models the historical reality close enough, then learning the game will find the players learning historic tactics and the mistakes made in history.

Koster in his book "Game Design for Fun" stated that games are nothing but learning challenges. Once the game or scenario is 'grokked' [Koster's term], the puzzle is solved and players move on to the next game. Games with re-playability offer new challenges each time or several puzzles to solve. That learning the game is fun.

Just to note the above. I quoted Gamesman6 because I agree with his question and observation that I riffed on.

😉

And again detail and knowledge is only important in terms of the game if it is useful and appropriate.

Understanding about the presence or lack of radios affects communication, it also opens the opportunity for them not functioning. But I'd say it adds the wlwmtn of how the radio affects communication.

Knowledge on the specifics of opposing making guns in different tanks vs armour etc. Maybe intersting or useful in design but in playing it more than likely I as player only need to recognise a summary of that information.. as i may not need to consider all the detail only that I've a better chance of a sucessful shot from say flank or rear.

What we include is down to our areas of interest and that of the people we want to play what we design.

This is about who want's what.

As a kid I found particulary WW2 rules dire. The authors took such a superfical approch particularly to armoured vehicles that their rulse could at best be decribed as dire. If you, outside Wargames, have an interest in a period and perhaps even a type of troop like tanks; then rules that seem incapable of covering even the basics are an anathama. It does seem that to me persomnally, more recent rules sets rules are aimed at the unenthusiastic who play because they painted the toys and want to play with diffrent painted toys next week. Some degenerate to nothing less than farce, Figheres enter the battle space and leave inminutes or less in real time they do not handg about for the houres a land battle represents. We enthusiasts who have spent lots of time reading about the complexities of say armoured vehicels are not generally catered for almost at all. That we are a small slice of the population cannot be denied, however the fact our rules that cover the sytems more credibly, not even we would say perfectly, are still being sold !5 YEARS after it's first publication is a testament to the need. We expected to be sperceeded by others in a similar veign but personally all recent published rules are a steps backwards to the very worst lowest common denominator rules. Best from a commecial stand point mabe, but really poor from an enthusiasts point.

Hence it seems that the enthusiats are dumped in favore of dummed down rules aimed at the casual player not the serious player who need some reasonable detail to make a game a pleasuarable experience. I am told this dumming downis also occuring in the RPG world. It proaqbley matters not to folk who barely understand what a pltoon is (yes we have had thet question from a guy who painted tanks) but to an enthusiast it matter a great beal to heve some of the very basics of tank design represented.

We are not talking minor stuff but the basics that funadamenty matter, no uneccessary detail which some folk seem to think is what any detail is. Painting a work of art like the Moinalisa in two coloures would be the equivalent, rules without enough detail are the same.
Hence the need for detail is proably based on what you actually know and read, watching Hooliwood movies absoutely does not count they are mostly travaties of the real world, but to be fair they were never admitting to be documantaries though some seem to think thay are.

Rant over sort of ;-).

UshCha,
I pretty much agree but I could never have put it as "eloquently" as you did.

However, it's really none of our business what people want to play as I think most see the hobby as art, entertainment and social interaction. We all have different goals and reasons for playing. The perceived reality is mostly created in the visuals, not the rules and I don't see that changing in this generation.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag I think the point is we niche players are basically ignored by most rule writers which does seem to be a loss to us as most games are now written by commercial entities and hence need to be Dummed down for mass appeal at the expense of niche players.

Mind you we Brits are a strange lot. The "powers that be" decided to Dumb down Radio 4 the highbrow channel, so highbrow it laughs at itself. However in dumming it down they lost not gained audience and had to revert to get its audience back to the original levels. So niche audiences are worth pursing.

Surely as niche players we are defined by not being supported by tne mainstream. 😉🙂
And that's why we design and duacuss how to satisfy our niche! 😉

We all have different niches so how we satisfy that will vary.

So detail and knowledge will vary too.

As a genral principle.as a designer knowledge should give me more insight in to detail and what detail is relevant to the experience we are trying to create and how to help players realise mahatma knowledge in their experience.

UshCha,
A company needs a business plan to make $$. Marketing and developing a product for a niche market is normally profitable if you charge higher prices and may lose $$. The demand volume is not there. I have not seen an AARs on Tractics even though a new version came out last year.

Evidently, the current popular rule systems are adequate based on demand. There seems to be a bigger demand for newer models and terrain which is where the profits are for gaming companies.

Besides, people like you and I who write our own rules don't need any stick'n rules writers and there is nothing on the market right now I'd buy. But to each his own.

Wolfhag

Evidently, the current popular rule systems are adequate based on demand. There seems to be a bigger demand for newer models and terrain which is where the profits are for gaming companies.

Wolfhag and UshCha:
This has been a theme with you. I don't think that is the whole story or even the most important part.

1. Current demand is always for what exists with minor tweaks like 10mm instead of 5 or 15. New demands are created by producers, not customers--even with 10mm. Someone had to do it first when there was no demand. When do customers have a demand for something that doesn't exist in any current form?

2. Unlike other hobbies, particularly those based on history and/or technology, here is no 'niche' in the wargame hobby when it comes to rules. All rules provide the same thing at supposedly the same level of fun and historical accuracy, and all rules use the same figures and terrain.

Oh, there are followers of certain rules, even they will claim them to be historically accurate. So? All the past and current games claim that. Even a tabletop version of Command & Colors do that.

The differences in rules are in whether they use cards and/or dice [both have been around for decades] or a different game sequence. That's it.

3. Ask yourself how many wargamers design their own rules or modify others? That had been a long-time aspect of this hobby. Why? You don't see that in board wargames much, even when it is far easier [just cardboard and paper].

4. It is interesting that the board wargame community uses the word 'simulation' all the time. There is even a couple of board wargame companies with simulation in their title. Could it be that those with similar demands like you two have left the hobby because their demands weren't met… or left halfway with their own personal rules and don't play any others? ["here is nothing on the market right now I'd buy."] I know of at least three friends that simply left the hobby because of the crap history being presented and the low level demands by fellow players… Kinda like ignoring the movie Napoleon because of the stupid historical nonsense shown. The rationales for this silliness is defended much like our wargames. 'Spectacle!' And of course, we all know there is a demand for such movies and Hollywood games. You probably read what Director Scott said when questioned about the atrocious history presented: "Were you there? No, then F---off."
It's all about empty spectacle because that is what people want… or is it simply the only thing available?

Who the hobby attracts has changed since the 1980s and 90s. "The aging hobby" doesn't explain this. It is the difference between Gettysburg and Master and Commander and the current Napoleon. Part of that is the hobby's own fault. A failure to grow a coherent statement about what we are providing with our games.

5. Almost all hobbies have a distinct set of levels for growth from simple/entry level to some more complex levels. I've give a few examples like RC models and quilt making. Our hobby doesn't. Oh, there are simple and complex rules, but they supposedly offer the very same levels of fun and history, [Ask any advocate of Bolt Action and compare that to defenders of Chain of Command say.] They all use the same figures and terrain. It is a very, very flat intellectual and content landscape.

The ones who have really allowed this to happen are the designers and publishers. They sell the same stuff to the same group and what happens is that group shrinks when there is no place to go except the new set of rules that offer the very same thing. This is continually defended as giving the gamer what they want. So they get the same old-same old.

We can grouse about this, but I am interested in the thread topic and simulation design. It is a question of validating the history/reality modeled in a wargame design.

McLaddie clearly you are not that up on "niche" wargames. Both Mine and Wolfghags systems are not just diffrent die or cards.

Both of us have systems that have no analogy to those of other current rules. While I agree many commecial rules have not really changes their spots since I was a 14 tyear old, that is not a given, rules have not exhausted better ways to meodel. The point is we have worked out new systems that give a better correlation to the real world. Hence you comments in (2) above show some lack of understanding of wher rules can go.

UshCha:

When talking about The Hobby, one person or a group around a homegrown set of rules does not make a hobby 'niche.' If a small groups across the hobby was recognized as playing 'X' type games [home-made or otherwise], and established and shared hobby-wide understandings of such methods then it would be a niche. As long as folks just change or create rules for themselves without regard to who else is doing that, no niche is created.

Niche definition:
Noun:
"A specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service."

Adjective:
Denoting products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population.

Now designing your own miniature wargames *could be* a niche if it was recognized as something available to the hobby and wargamers of a certain ilk gravitated to it. And of course they'd want to know the technical aspects of game design. Sort of like True Scale RC plane modelers wanting to know everything about the constructions and aerodynamics of real planes and how to build scale models of them.

The Game Design section could provide such a venue. However, at the moment, it is "no one wants it", "can't be done," etc. etc. etc.

And again detail and knowledge is only important in terms of the game if it is useful and appropriate.

Gamesman6:

Agreed. The appropriate knowledge for the player is:

1. What part of history is being portrayed. If they don't know, then their experience of simulating it is lost for the most part. Players fill in the blanks with their own ideas…which too often has nothing to do with what the designer intended experiencing history/reality.

2. If #1 is done with 'appropriate knowledge,' then players won't be searching for details in the game to tell them what they need/want to know is the historical content. Details then can serve the game experience rather than cluttering it to make it a 'dynamic book' to use the old SPI phrase to justify detail-heavy, complex wargames.

Sure. Though with #1 our grounds for comparison is our own knowledge.
I'd also say that knowledge OF the period is not the same ans knowledge IN the period.
I think that distinction is important. From distance we will have knowledge the people we play as wouldnt have and also be lacking knowledge and experience they did have.
That's why I think while knowledge is important for the designer a well designed game will allow a player to learn about the period.

Imo that doesn't often happen because rules tend to follow a certain. Format and this is separate from the actions we are representing but rather moderate outcomes.

#yes… imo well designed system will teach less familiar players about why things were as they were in the period and more knowledgeable players will recognise that now ledge in how the game operates.

My issue it that conventional systems get bogged down in complicated systems trying to replicate complex interactions.
Not j see a distinction between complicated and complex.
Many complex game are pretty simple to learn the basics off and "operate"

Though with #1 our grounds for comparison is our own knowledge.

Gamesman6: Our knowledge is what the wargame is based on. 100% That is what the player needs to know to actually experience the history/reality the designer wants him to.

My issue it that conventional systems get bogged down in complicated systems trying to replicate complex interactions. Not see a distinction between complicated and complex. Many complex game are pretty simple to learn the basics off and "operate."

We are talking game design, so I am talking about the systems' complexity or complicated mechanics… too much detail. Whether the game is demanding in play strategy or providing a wide variety of possible winning strategies is of course, a design goal or outcome. At least you now know what I am referencing by saying complex or complicated: The game system and structure. Too much destroys the game and any simulation value.

My issue it that conventional systems get bogged down in complicated systems trying to replicate complex interactions.

It is a game design issue, whether anyone shares your view or not. I agree with you. then they go the opposite direction and simplifying out any meaningful history/reality experience, with 'flavor' while claiming it is a recreation of something historical or real. Like Scott's movie 'Napoleon.'

It looks like there is going to be a movie of the 8th bomber group in WWII based on a popular history that looks good in the facts department…by following the book.

My issue it that conventional systems get bogged down in complicated systems trying to replicate complex interactions.

What are the complex interactions you are trying to represent?

Sure. Though with #1 our grounds for comparison is our own knowledge.

Where should that knowledge come from? To my knowledge, there is no military training or doctrine that addresses game mechanics like activations, initiative determination, command point, or variation of IGYG.

This has been a theme with you. I don't think that is the whole story or even the most important part.

I think UshCha and I are discussing the overall current design approach and not necessarily the game mechanics. The main publishers target as wide an audience as possible to maximize profits so they must dumb down the mechanics and rules and go with what most players will be familiar with. This is an excellent business model. I'm not saying that's a bad thing as that practice has attracted many people to the hobby. Catering to a niche or minority of players is not profitable.

There are many game designers (amateurs and professionals) who write their own rules for themselves or their groups. However, historically game designers have proven to be poor businessmen and most of these efforts you'll never hear about.

Yes, in the end, it is fun and entertaining where you must have a good imagination and suspend belief. The visuals go a long way in achieving that.

Wolfhag

McLaddie 15th Jan 2024). Again you seem to have lost the plot. Our game is published and has sold quite well as its not amied at the 1pager model painter types. If it's in a commecial markest and the only one it maye make it niche but its not "Home brew" and it does sell. So What is the diffrence betwween a set that is "commecrial" and done at home and one done by two professional Engineers one of which has had the odd artical published in the Milatary press.

You might say the latter (us)couuld be better its done by professionals who's team are experienced in simulation.

Again you seem to have radically diffrent design goals to us. You seem to want blindingly crude and innacurate if assessed in detail (which is what overly simplified rules are). We are designing for foks who have a good grounding and knowledge of the period and want to explore more by simulation. Again we are desining a system for the knowledgeable, not the man who plays 12 diffrent periods in a year and kows virtually nothing about them except the pattern and coloure of the uniforms. Nothing wrong with that of coures but the simulations are going to be wildly diffrent content. Our players soon tell us if we have systems that are not representative of the real world. They are aware of the detail so whant to see representative usefull detail in the system. Oversimplification means the system will have a very wide margin for error so may not be usefull in some cases.

Again you seem to have lost the plot. Our game is published and has sold quite well as its not amied at the 1pager model painter types. If it's in a commecial markest and the only one it maye make it niche but its not "Home brew" and it does sell.

UshCha: Well, I was not aware of that. What niche are you filling, other than the not one page rules?

You might say the latter (us)could be better its done by professionals who's team are experienced in simulation.

Could I? Why, and is that a niche? What I don't understand is why you professionals experienced in simulation are fussing with me over basic simulation methods?

Again you seem to have radically diffrent design goals to us. You seem to want blindingly crude and innacurate if assessed in detail (which is what overly simplified rules are).

UshCha:
Where in the 'ho-ha' do you get that idea?? And why? What have I said to suggest that?? It is a basic participatory simulation fact that players need to know what they are simulating to actually experience the simulation as such. You can think otherwise, but it runs in the face of research and decades of experience and experimentation.

We are designing for folks who have a good grounding and knowledge of the period and want to explore more by simulation.

Uh-huh. Is that who you are selling to? And how do you know? Are they grounded the way you think they are?

Again we are designing a system for the knowledgeable, not the man who plays 12 different periods in a year and knows virtually nothing about them except the pattern and coloure of the uniforms.

Well, I am not sure how playing different periods somehow lessens their knowledge of one. One thing is clear, you aren't someone adding to a player's knowledge, only designing to it. I still don't know how you would know whether those buying your rules are any more 'knowledgeable' than the 12 different period guys.

Whenever we have talked to folk in the past we have always advocated they download the free stuff first so it is clear the level of detail we work at.

For the occasional player in our experience they do not devote much time to the history. The Brits have a saying "Jack of all trades Master of none" which I feel is relevant.

In our page on the publishing site we make sure the QR sheet is free and there is a fair amount of text available to show the level of detail, some are put off just by the size (about 100 pages with guides to the mechanisms".

Hence only fools would buy blindly and as we have not sold millions I can assume most folk know what they want and don't buy buy what they don't want.

One thing is clear, you aren't someone adding to a player's knowledge, only designing to it

.

That again seems a somewhat bizarre statement. If you run a CFD code you do not learn how to do CFD by reading the code or even the manual for the system. Similarly in a Flight simulator it does not tell you how to fly. It assumes quite a lot of basic knowledge. You could lean how to fly theoretically but just getting into say an A380 simulator, but it would take you years and the cost would be astronomical if you had no basics on flight or a basic understanding of the system.

Similarly we do not tell you how to fight a tank, that not a simulators job. It's job is given a set of inputs to provide the most realistic response to those input be it daft or otherwise. To do more would constrain the expert and to attempt to "train on the job" would slow down the system response, critical for any analysis system for the folk who know what they are doing.
All a simulator is required or should ever be designed for is to define it's inputs at the most basic level and from that generate an output. Of necessitate any decent system has to be able to work Rubbish in equals Rubbish out. The system cannot nor even should it EVER constrain the inputs beyond the bare minimum to prevent the system getting corrupted. To do so inhibits the flexibility and creativity of the user. as an example We define a level of communication effectiveness and the limits of what can be transmitted. However its not for us to say which of those orders should be used, daft or not.

Clearly while we would both appear to claim a lifetime of experience "hands on" with simulators we seem to have almost no common ground as to what the role of a simulator is.

You see it as an education tool, certainly in my profession that would be a somewhat laughable aim.

You may run design exercises to train folk like you do with a CADDS programs, but that is not a design goal. The design goal is just analysis at its best and as fast as possible. You output the results of the design, if it does not meet your requirements you modify your inputs and run the analysis again. The simulator cannot directly show you where you went wrong, only the response to the inputs you made. It's job is to simulate something already designed.

A simulator such as ours cannot tell you how to plan, only some give you tools to allow you to execute that plan in a way the simulator is designed to accept inputs.

That again seems a somewhat bizarre statement. If you run a CFD code you do not learn how to do CFD by reading the code or even the manual for the system. Similarly in a Flight simulator it does not tell you how to fly. It assumes quite a lot of basic knowledge. You could lean how to fly theoretically but just getting into say an A380 simulator, but it would take you years and the cost would be astronomical if you had no basics on flight or a basic understanding of the system.

UshCha:
Then the answer is yes, you aren't someone adding to a player's knowledge, only designing to it. It can't be that
bizarre a statement if you agree with it.

You see it as an education tool, certainly in my profession that would be a somewhat laughable aim.

So, as a professional you don't create simulations to learn anything or guide others?

Yes, I see wargames and simulations as learning experiences, an unavoidable learning experience at some level. Even the most knowledgeable player in your game has to learn the rules, while making connections between what they know and the game dynamics. That's called learning.

You may run design exercises to train folk like you do with a CADDS programs, but that is not a design goal. The design goal is just analysis at its best and as fast as possible.

No, I don't run exercises like that. You should know that from all I have written to you. You have a very one-note view of simulations that doesn't make much sense to me. Designing a simulation [not an exercise] for the purposes of learning is a design goal. And a design goal of 'analysis' isn't one of your design goals for a simulations professionally?

I do design learning exercises, but the simulations and simulation games I designed were used for teaching the use of varied skills in a fluid, dynamic environment with lots of moving parts. Examples, Non-confrontational skills in front of a hostile audience, management/leadership skills at different levels in business and education. Verbal skills and non-verbal skills. All had to have direct and usually immediate [and successful] application to the real world.

A simulator such as ours cannot tell you how to plan, only some give you tools to allow you to execute that plan in a way the simulator is designed to accept inputs.

And I say, that to use a simulator system such as you describe successfully has to be learned, and trial and error will be involved to some extent. Your folks aren't born proficient in all future simulations are they? That is a learning curve that can't be avoided. It will also teach how to plan to a small or greater degree with that trial and error. What point is the simulation if the user already knows how to plan? Unless the idea is to analyze some new plan. You know gain new knowledge [i.e. learning]

I have used simulations as educational tools, but like you, I didn't have a job if the simulation didn't relate directly to reality, provide a safe environment to learn skills [or testing] needed in the real world. All my simulations were participatory, not designed to analyze something sans user.

There is nothing wrong with requiring your players know everything about warfare before you let them play, but the simulation is just a tool, and mine will be no more 'crude' than yours even though our goals appear to be different. A simulation is just a tool, a great one, but that doesn't change the tool because it is used for different things. All simulations have the same basic moving parts. That is why they are called simulations rather than exercises or just games.

I do design learning exercises, but the simulations and simulation games I designed were used for teaching the use of varied skills in a fluid, dynamic environment with lots of moving parts. Examples, Non-confrontational skills in front of a hostile audience, management/leadership skills at different levels in business and education. Verbal skills and non-verbal skills. All had to have direct and usually immediate [and successful] application to the real world.

That is a diffrent goal for the design. The real meat of the simulator is to take that knowledge and test it out. The deighn of the learning excercise is outside the scope of the simulation, it is simply a mechanical part of the whole part of the excersize not part of the excercise as a whole. To do otherwise is to compromise the ultimare desighn of the tool which is to analyse quickly and accurately. It takes a good while to train an individula to create a system to be analysed, not part of the simulations job and a while to interprest that desighn into effectively code the simultion system uses, again only inderictly the simulation. The real simulation is running the code to get the answers. Equally ther my be an overhead in traing the individual to interprest the results of the code. Its then definitely not the job of the code to say whether that was a good answer or not.

Training is a requiremet to use a simulator, it is not nor should it be a design aim OF THE SIMULATOR. Education of how to operate the simulatort is not really a simulator design but an interface issue. You seem to be overly concentrated on the interface, a key part of the overall system but the clever bit is the anaysis of the system in evaluating say the fluid flow in the system. If that fails then the periffreral have no value anyway.

I have worked on interface design and the design of the systems and fundamentals of mechanisms by which a systen analyses the imputs.

Most assuredly they are not one and the same thing. Equally important yes but very distict topics.

Wolfhag
What are the complex interactions you are trying to represent?

-G6
Morale, FoW Friction, 3CI.
As rules moved from relative simplicity, we've tended to use the old type of mechanics to provide systems to recreate these complex things. For me these suffer because we aren't even sure what the factors are that determine why they happen and interact and then try to model them in "recognised" way.

Wolfhag

Where should that knowledge come from? To my knowledge, there is no military training or doctrine that addresses game mechanics like activations, initiative determination, command point, or variation of IGYG.

-G6
There's military and historical knowledge. Then there is the knowledge of playing games generally and wargames specifically.

As a player whether I've played a wargame or not I will have a baseline of knowledge of these things, good or bad. Both implicit and explicit.

Also we've the added knowledge of the "game" itself. We all get better at playing that thing.m. regardless. We don't have to be a rules lawyer to be better at understanding the way a game functions and use that.

Other things help to. I've read several times of soldiers playing paint ball games… and betting badly beaten.. because they were operating as if it were combat. But then as soon as they started playing paintball instead beating the paintball teams because they had better team work and communication.

IMO and my goal is to design a game that allows itself to be learnt easily, gives insights for different levels and is something people want to play.
Which of course is what we all want we just go about it differently…. 😉

UshCha:
Well, I think I see where we have been disagreeing from our uses of simulations. You do have a rather skewed and 'crude' view of what I have used simulations for. A simulation system has to be tested to validate its ability to mimic reality. Yep. That is before the user can confidently use it to get the output he wants.

The real meat of the simulator is to take that knowledge and test it out. The design of the learning excercise is outside the scope of the simulation, it is simply a mechanical part of the whole part of the excersize not part of the excercise as a whole.

Learning 'exercise' is outside the scope of the simulation? Simulations certainly are mechanical. However, who is 'testing it out?' I'd say the players as the users are doing that by trial and error. User input variations if you will to see what happens. [i.e. learning what the system can do and what the simulator can do in the simulation environment.] Skills and knowledge of the system dynamics can be a learning experience.

To do otherwise is to compromise the ultimare desighn of the tool which is to analyse quickly and accurately.

I'm sorry, but that is A use of a simulation, not the 'ultimate design of the tool'. Simulations can be used for training [learning and analyzing] as well as analyzing and predicting. I am not sure why you don't agree.

It takes a good while to train an individuls to create a system to be analysed,…

The designer is the one who needs training to create a system. The rule book is the instruction manual tells the simulators/users/players how the system works, how to use it, playing to 'analyze' the environment and how to succeed in it.

…not part of the simulation's job…

ANY simulation's job, its ONLY job, yours, mine, anyone's whether a simulation of a manufacturing process, the weather, galaxy formation or a wargame, is to model, mimic etc. the designer's chosen aspects of reality. That's it. How and why that simulation system is later used doesn't change that basic fact. That is true whether a computer program used for analysis or a wargame designed as entertainment. That is one reason there are universal, basic building blocks of simulations regardless of the medium.

…and a while to interprest that desighn into effectively code the simultion system uses, again only inderictly the simulation. The real simulation is running the code to get the answers.

Beyond the designer's work of effectively coding the simulation system, that is exactly what players/users of a simulation game are doing: Running code, the system to get answers: How the environment works, how history is portrayed and how to succeed in that environment.

You appear to be running simulations to get analytical answers. That is very much what players are doing in playing. As Koster notes in Designing Games for Fun, Games are puzzles that players are trying to solve--finding answers, analyzing the system and it's 'outputs.'

Equally there may be an overhead in traing the individual to interprest the results of the code. Its then definitely not the job of the code to say whether that was a good answer or not.

A simulation, whether code or a game system, doesn't have good or bad 'answers', it just is. AND will work or not work [good or bad results?] depending on the decisions/input of the users.

Ushcha, you create very specific kinds of simulations, mostly computer programs from the sounds of it. That isn't the only type of simulation, just a particular medium and a particular use. The foundational components that make a simulation a simulation are still the same for wargames.

I hope I have made clear the commonalities in what I did and do with simulations and your uses for them.

Now, I am not sure how you translate what you've said above into creating your simulation table top rules.