"The more things change the more they stay the same" Topic

In looking for something online I came across the July 1975 copy of Wargames newsletter.

A number of things stood out to highlight the title of this post.

This one, as it sits with a lot of recent discussions.

"Congratulations are in order on your obtaining the excellent article on Firepower by Paddy
Griffith. I agree with his points that artillery caused the major proportion of casualties, that
infantry rarely "crossed bayonets" and that superior morale won battles. I must say thought that I
believe all this would make a very dull set of wargames rules. My point is that a balance must be
struck between historical accuracy and fun. If you like sanguine melees then jolly good luck to you!"
Mike Perkins of Harrow Weald.

My point is that a balance must be struck between historical accuracy and fun.

Absolutely. However, any attempts to "balance" are going to be non-historical.

I think you have to look at the scenario. You will not have one where one side undergoes a heavy artillery bombardment for 4+ hours. Artillery will play a small part in an urban or jungle environment because both sides are at close quarters.

Defenders historically fell back to an alternate defensive position if the attackers would get into their position and avoid HTH combat.

In combat, the #1 axiom is "don't fight fair". Which is the opposite of a typical game where it needs to be "fair and balanced".

Like I've said before, "Reality Sucks".

Wolfhag

I'd have said the trick is to pick periods and scenarios which are fun--lost of choices--and in which both sides historically stood a chance. That's not compromising historical accuracy, but choosing wisely.

Obviously this is easier some times and places than others, but that's what makes historical miniatures gaming trickier than fantasy and science fiction. If you want easy, I'm pretty sure someone still sells paint by numbers sets.

The best stratagem a real general is to make a battle unfair on his opponent!
Our army lists, rules and points systems are designed to create a battle where both sides have a chance.
We are here to have a fun game, not conquer a country/territory/star system etc.!!!

Griffiths was by all accounts a gamer, little interested on simulation so for me not a good reference. The basic nonsence of equal points is an obvious example. We rarely have equal armmies it in most cases that is about as unrealistic as it gets. Even the great Phil Barker recognised this and at least balances his ganmes to have a sensible attcak defence games.

I have been writing scenarios for at least 20 years and a few fail, but none gest as poor as an "equal points value" game with its serile terrain ststem to make sure that the points sytem at least approcimates the same trerrain every time, too much soft ground and the precious tanks would be an utter failure.

Thre has to be some compromises as we all have limited brain capacity so approximations need to be made, but deliberately bending reality at least to me makes no sence, then the games plays nothing like the real world so to me is worthless and boreing.

Fortunatley the world has moved on and better designers have emerged.

fudging reality for 'better' play is not new and nothing I am interested in. A now dead famous designer in both miniatures and boardgames used to do it, he shall remain nameless out of my respect for him.

From my experience artillery can overwhelm a game. Some of the rules I've seen used would turn the game into "Artillery Commander".

Historically, the Americans in W. Europe would call in artillery when they first met resistance. Especially if they had airborne FO and fighter-bombers circling waiting for a target. That wouldn't be much fun unless you were Americans. A single ToT barrage could end the game.

Here is a method I use to simulate defenders recovering from a long heavy artillery bombardment in their bunkers.

The game starts with the attackers 100-200m from the defenders when the attacker's barrage is lifted. The attackers must move quickly before the defenders can recover and man their defensive positions. Every 10th turn the defender rolls for each bunker to see if they recover and man their positions and how many casualties they have. If they don't recover it's because of the concussive effect of the bombardment.

Now the attacker's tanks can roll up on a bunker, crush it, and roll over trenches. The defenders in the trenches can stay out of sight and attack the tanks unless the attacking infantry can get to the trenches. This is where the Russian T-34's riders are dropped off too.

You get the causality and suppressive effects of a heavy barrage without all of the die-rolling and a lot of close combat too.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag
Sure… its also about where we join the action. Games tend toward the representation of the exciting parts.

Robert
Yes.. or look for ways to make things intersting that aren't made so in the conventional approaches.

Herky bird
See above. We focus on the exciting bit… the battle… but as you say by that point things may already be decided so we look at the action that leads to the battle.

Ushcha
He was a wargamer.. or his time. He also looked at the information. Then quite was from an opinion on the book Griffiths had written.
I'd question whether things "have moved on" given discussions recently on this forum.

Mildbill
Againni think fudging comes about when current methods don't reflect the actuality and rather than look for a new better method fudge the reality.

Wolfhag 2nd post..
🫡👍🏻

And from Don Featherstones editorial in the same issue.

Im aware that much of it wasn't "new" in 1975. Rather though we still go round the same discussions. Though of course they didn't have computers and all the other things we have to facilitate that.

In his review of my book WARGAMING THROUGH
THE AGES Volume 3 1792-1859 elsewhere in this
issue, Richard Brooks appeared surprised that I
should emphasise the realistic representation of
forces and tactics applicable to particularly
specified times and places in view of my ill-concealed view that table-top wargaming bears but
a coincidental resemblance to reality. In a sense, this oft expressed view is aimed at cutting down to size some of the more pretentious of our fraternity who are all too prone to forget that it is only a game. There IS a lack of reality about wargaming but it is mainly confined to appearance and scales and should in no way bear upon the eternal search for historical and tactical reality. Conscious that I am not alone in this aim, I was pleased to receive a letter from a practicing wargamer (who wishes to be anonymous) which said the following -
"I have noticed that few wargamers attempt to produce the confusion and delay factor in their games. Chap A plays Chap B and both of them can see all of the battlefield and make an instant decision to counter opponent's attacks, etc. It seems to me that a more realistic game would take place if both players were out of sight of the terrain and were forced to rely on hastily drawn maps and the verbal reports of others who merely moved the pieces – either in response to the general's orders or as they saw an attempted attack developing on their own front only. When one considers the tremendous
communications problems that existed even into World War Two which hampered commanders, it does seem
that realism demands some sort of factor to simulate the fact that the overall commander very often had to operate on inspired guesswork. It is this very factor which gave rise to so many lost opportunities for victory. It is fairly easy to mull over the battle in an armchair and say that General Bloggins should have seized the opportunity to hurl in his reserves. 1 suspect that poor Bloggins rarely knew the opportunity had even occurred. As you well know, even when generals were in the habit
of being on the field in person, orders went astray as aides were shot, and the general smoke and confusion hid many things which are too clearly seen in a wargame.
I appreciate that such a system may drift away from the two persons playing a slaughtering match wargame but perhaps it is time that we tried to define what the purpose of wargaming is. Despite all the publicity in one form and another, wargamers too often are presented as "playing battles with toy
soldiers" – perhaps there exists a need for someone to set up a staff college tor wargamers! Paradoxically, I think that the introduction of a confusion/communications factor could lead to a simplification of rules. Perhaps it is worth more than instant dismissal as an idea."
Makes you think doesn't it?
DON

Don was one of my inspirations for staring wargaming but even as a teenagers you soon realised he made no real attempt to get somting credible. I far as I can see he just wanyed LUDO with figures, he is certailny no personal hero of mine. His pathetic "all the stuff on the table" thing is just that pathetic, especially now, We can easily draw maps and hide stuff even in a 2 plaYer game and the 80/20 RULE applies. You do not need all of it to get a reasonable approximation.

Wosse still he never attemped to do better, I guess, lack of real world plausibility for me makes it unplayable, far to
tdedious, I'd rather play Dominoes. A wargame for me has to play like the accounts you read and at least pay some attention to how real world system opprate. The not hiding figures is a non starter as a valid argument. It can be dome easily and cheaply, whether folk want real world realism or fantasy is simply a personal chose, its not can't be done but, I don't want to do it and come up with rediculose arguments so as to not encourahe playes to do what can be domne.

Perhaps I'm wrong, some stuff isrthe same, the bias againt sensible plausible riules over mindless ultra simple rules still remainss. The artillery agument in wargames has also stayed. One ARTILLERY MANUAL NOTES THE ROLE OF ARTILLEY IS TO sUPPRESS AND FIX IN PLACE. In mkany poor ly written wargames you, could destroy entire armies without the need for any troops. That clearly never happened at any time to any extent. Read a few sensible documents and you realise artillery is never widly available in unlimited quantities. Yes ther are WW" accounts of an enemy in a field being obbliterated by 15" navel gunfire but one field does not a battle make, and is a trvial contribution to a war.

In the Ukraine the russiam mecenaries moaned they were not allowed to use the 300 shells they needed to takk out a tank, bear in mind an SP gun carries typicaly less than 50 round (example of a decent SP gun AS 90 48 rounds).

So its not that rules can't be plausible but designers can't be botherd to make the effort. Mecifaly some are not stuck into the nostagia thing so at least in places thisng get better in the hobby, so things are improving but not at my haoped for rate. Pedudice/tradition is the slowest to fade.

There IS a lack of reality about wargaming but it is mainly confined to appearance and scales and should in no way bear upon the eternal search for historical and tactical reality.

Most miniature players are into creating the visuals and a simple set of balanced rules to move units around and take pictures will be adequate. That's the hobby for them. To each his own. From my experience, overall board gamers will use a more historically accurate and detailed set of rules.

When you get wildly unrealistic scales, like 28mm tanks a few feet away that equate to medium range, it looks more like kids playing with toys rather than a realistic portrayal of a battlefield. Although it could be realistic in an urban environment.

It seems to me that a more realistic game would take place if both players were out of sight of the terrain and were forced to rely on hastily drawn maps and the verbal reports of others who merely moved the pieces – either in response to the general's orders or as they saw an attempted attack developing on their own front only.

Absolutely. However, most/new players will stay and do nothing if they don't know where the enemy is. If you have hidden units you need to have recon by fire and recon units too. However, you'll find players spending most of the game firing at suspected locations. You'd need some type of abstraction to determine the recon by fire.

When one considers the tremendous communications problems that existed even into World War Two which hampered commanders, it does seem that realism demands some sort of factor to simulate the fact that the overall commander very often had to operate on inspired guesswork.

Yes. However, once a unit is issued a mission they will attempt to accomplish it without further orders. Many games have you unrealistically micro-managing units, needlessly issuing orders at every turn.

Company Commanders can come to the front and leave their XO in charge to get a picture of the situation but risk getting killed. How and when to commit his reserves would be the biggest challenge.

In many poorly written wargames you, could destroy entire armies without the need for any troops. That clearly never happened at any time to any extent. Read a few sensible documents and you realise artillery is never widely available in unlimited quantities. Yes, there are WWI accounts of an enemy in a field being obliterated by 15" navel gunfire but one field does not a battle make, and is a trivial contribution to a war.

If the defenders have prepared trenches and overhead cover they can be almost immune to light and medium artillery.

When you fire spotting rounds the defenders will start moving or seeking cover. So when you are landing rounds on target they'll be in cover. ToT is effective because a large number of shells land accurately at about the same time catching the defenders in the open before they can seek cover.

The Russian 152mm and 203mm shells are delay fused to penetrate into the ground to destroy underground bunkers. In Ukraine, they are not very effective because they go far enough into the ground (especially mud) that the shrapnel and blast are degraded or go straight up. They don't have super quick fuses that detonate above ground or on trenches. However, they are very effective against buildings because they penetrate first and explode inside.

Wolfhag

"Griffiths was by all accounts a gamer, little interested on simulation"

I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Paddy Griffiths endless frustration with figure gaming was that they were just games, and not simulations of anything resembling reality. What he tried to do was generate realistic outcomes within simple mechanisms. The chaps at Sandhurst might disagree that he didn't do simulation.

What he tried to do was generate realistic outcomes within simple mechanisms.

Generating realistic outcomes is important. However, if you use abstracted and artificial game mechanics, which may have nothing to do with military or command action, how worthwhile is it in a training simulation for military officers?

Shouldn't the game allow the players to explore different outcomes based on their decisions?

Wolfhag

Martin…. have you met Ushcha! 🤔😳

Ushcha
You seem to getting something different from both Grittiths and Fewtherstone at least in these quotes than I am… but nkt for the first time.
The same stated goals can produce different approaches.

Wolfhag.
Simple mechanisms don't have to be abstracted or artificial as your rules show. Now we can discuss whether any set of rules achieve that… 😉

"Shouldn't the game allow the players to explore different outcomes based on their decisions?"

Yes. And surely realistic outcomes with simple mechanics is a key part of doing that?

I'm not being provocative, just it seemed quite bit binary.

Gamesman6 – I had both Feathersones books as a kid. The only lasting thing that came out of them for me is the Advanced wargames Sysesm of stepped hexagon terrain and from the War Games books Lional Tarrs buildings. I still love the card builinhs one of the 3 Story buildings I do is an homage to Tarr's Staningrad pictuers. Update for new technologhy yes bot otherwise very similar.

link

His rules lacked definition, and credibility.

Wolfhag has it oversimplification means that tactics go out of the window. If you cant use a machinegun in a similar way to the real world you can't reproduce real world outcomes.

Featherstones stuff had lack of understanding of real world modelling.

Even asa kid his games never reproduced any credible representations of the real accounts I read as a kid. His treatment of armoured vehicles was pathetic, and that recognised by a 14 tyear old, how much more do you need to substantiate my comments?

And Griffiths?

"Wolfhag has it oversimplification means that tactics go out of the window."

Sure.. though that was about Griffiths idea of having realistic results from simple mechanisms. You've jumped to "oversimplification" which is something thing else altogether.

"If you cant use a machinegun in a similar way to the real world you can't reproduce real world outcomes."

Sure but that's separate from whether the mechanisms are simple or complex.
Tailoring the mechanism to produce the result as skmply as possible is my goal. I don't want to be spending time operating the system.

You're now focusing on featherstones application. Rather than his stated goals which I was pointing to.

As I said before we can debate the execution separately from the goal…
I wouldt want to play featherstones rules. That to me is irrelevant in this case as is whether I'd want to play your rules, though on several aspects my goals align with yours.

The point of posting was that in 50 plus years we're still arguing the same points. 😉 and here we are…. 😄😀

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is an uninformed opinion.

I think game system critiques should be based on the designer's intent and goal. If he meets them then it's a success even if you disagree.

Any game designer will say everyone else's design is lacking or they have it wrong.

I've attended Connections at the US Army War College three times. This is where the military sends their simulation trainers and developers to showcase their designs and get ideas. The target audience seems to be staff officers and above operational games. I've never seen a low-level tactical game.

Example: PDF link

Their presentations stated that they need simple but intuitive game rules and mechanics that focus on decision-making. The "players" don't have time to read dozens of pages of rules. Simplification is a very broad term.

A designer can design for cause (details on what caused the event) or design for effect (the cause is simplified and built in).

Rather than argue definitions at length, I'll briefly state the difference between designing for cause and designing for effect as I discuss it here. The idea is that when you design for cause, you find the factors that caused something to occur, and design those factors into your game so that it's likely to occur. When you design for effect, you design the game so that the effect, the result, is a recognizable representation of history. Causes may or may not be reflected, but the goal is the effect, what happened, not why it happened.

Some commentators criticize "design for effect" in wargames. My thesis here is that such criticism is undeserved because "design for cause" is possible only at a low tactical level. From my point of view as a person educated to understand military history, virtually all board wargames, certainly all above a very low tactical level, are necessarily designed for Effect, not for Cause. Designing for Cause is a chimera, something that rarely can actually be done, or if it is, the history will appear "skewed" or wrong. Why? Three reasons:

1) reality is too complex,

2) reality is strongly influenced by chance, and

3) game design is subject to the problem of foresight/hindsight.

Source: link

Using the OODA Decision Loop Gaming Engine (Time Competitive) where seconds are used as a timing mechanism to execute an order (orders are not instantaneously executed) I can design for cause in a low-level tactical 1:1 engagement. I can go into detail on why your opponent fired first and what you could have done about it too (lesson learned) so it does not happen again. It can show the nuances of strengths and weaknesses of guns and weapons platforms that you can exploit.

If I were to design a platoon vs platoon game I'd use the Pk (probability of a kill) method. You index the shooter versus the target and range. The result would give you a % chance of a kill. When you don't kill you don't know the cause if it was a miss, ricochet, etc. When you knock out the target you don't know the cause, hit location, armor, penetration, etc. You won't be able to learn any tactical lessons but it would be a good system for a Battalion Commander to get an idea of unit vs unit capabilities and maneuvering.

All combat is Time Competitive. How much you can accomplish within a turn will determine your success or failure. If you are accomplishing more than your opponent you've most likely seized the initiative.

In a high-level Company and above game, minutes or hours count. At division level game days and weeks count. In a low-level 1:1 tactical game, whether it is the Wild West, muskets, AFV combat, seconds count. The greater the turn the more you need to simplify the rules and mechanics and use design for cause.

However, how can anyone learn anything if the simplification is not focused on real decision-making? Ideally, the system lets the player/student make a decision that may be right or wrong. It could be a Risk-Reward Decision with a smaller chance of success but it may gain some game-changing advantage if it succeeds. Taking calculated risks is important.

When you have the dice telling you what you can do, how often, and when it may be good at showing the effect but can the player/student learn anything other than he needs to practice rolling the dice better?

I'm not familiar with Featherstone or Griffith so I can't comment.

At Connections a few weeks ago I met with the Marine who is working on a company commander training simulation. He wants my son (US Marine SigInt and 18-month Ukraine War vet) to take a look and evaluate it. It should be interesting.

Wolfhag

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is an uninformed opinion.

-Thanks 😉🤔🙄😀😄

I think game system critiques should be based on the designer's intent and goal. If he meets them then it's a success even if you disagree.

-Sure

I've no disagreement with what you say we've been in some other discussions her to know that.

I think any point on divergence is on simplification and whether it stop real decision making. I'd agree that if it does then it's "wrong". Keep it simple, but not too simple.
You'll also know I'm no fan of dice espcially numeric dice. And I don't like playing dice games when I want to be playing wargames.

As to Featherstone I'd say that wargaming in the UK owes a debt to him, whether we like his application or not… which arw of their time. Griffiths equally though in a different way, being key to groups like Wargames Develolments coming in to existence and having it be taken more seriously at place like Sandhurst and bridging the gap both ways, of serious historical research and wargaming.

As you'll see some dont like what they did. I'm not advocating their application anymore than I'm into clothes or recipes from 1975… butbi can appreciate what they were trying to do and how the discussions keep coming around. 😀

A ps on simplicity. An impactful moment was decades ago when I read something from Designer Jim Webster who wanted to keep the game mechanics simple (discussions can ensue as to whether that's came about) to allow players to focus on the war and not implementing the game. He was frustrated by what he felt was uncessrily complexity to calculate various factors but if it came out as ultimately a 50/50 chance of a a final outcome then he'd happily discard all the complexity and replace it with a coin toss, in those circumstances.
I don't make then game systems any more complex than it need to be to produce the results I need.
Like you tank vs tank rules

allow players to focus on the war and not implementing the game

An issue with many rules is the game system takes over and the actual battle takes a back seat. Even for experienced games, game system complex can result in player forgetting important rules which have a major impact on the game. The game system has to reflect reality in some manner, especially when it comes to the result, but the game system needs to be as simple as possible.

Yep. The issue as far as I'm concerned is that too many systems look at existing gamey mechanics and then adapt those to represent the actuality hence its a game first.
Those mechanics tend to revolve around the use of numeric dice, which require an abstracted approach to fit within what the dice can do and result it people having to remember the system which is a separate to the actuality, having to mentally jump between actuality and system and also produces the a number focused mindset.

They also tend to focus on things unconnected to what the role/s the player occupies would be focused on.

All of which for me requires starting from scratch and looking at things differently… the Cause and Effect wolfhag mentioned above.

I think too many approaches focus on effect bug because it's done though numeric tables and dice the effect are those things.. not the effect we are seeking to model with those things

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is an uninformed opinion.

That was a generalized statement that included me too <smile>

I think any point on divergence is on simplification and whether it stop real decision making. I'd agree that if it does then it's "wrong". Keep it simple, but not too simple.
You'll also know I'm no fan of dice espcially numeric dice. And I don't like playing dice games when I want to be playing wargames.

In most games, you can make the same decisions as real commanders. What I see is the problem it has with the IGYG turn sequence. The players are told what to do and when and normally all players get the same number of actions.

There are so many different ways to parse the action that it really becomes which one a player prefers and best "tricks" his mind.

The big companies have expenses and need to continue to release new versions which are just another take on previous systems.

Wolfhag

The danger of oversimplification is that key drivers can be eliminated. I was aware that one rule designer had only 1 armour value for a tank. He argued that you could make an assessment that x percentage were killed by front shots and X by side shots. Hence derive a value. Truly a valid approximation in some respects. However simply implemented as a factor, the gains of a side shot are eliminated. Hence in game shots doe not have any direction factor on kill rate. Hence the value of a side shot is not assessed so tactics change as there is now no gain for side shots.

Hence the simplification introduces errors as the game use of the statistic can differ wildly from the situation on which the value was derived making it invalid.

Detail can be a pain. Some detail may only have a minor influence on an outcome, sometimes it does not. The real world can be essentially simple most of the time.

However when searching for 1 bomb going through 80% of possible bombs is poor as any one bomb can have a massive effect hence detail in some cases is vital. There is a level where simplification is a very reasonable approach. However oversimplification can lead to gross errors, there is a happy medium. To me at least many commercial rules have gone well past the sweet spot. They are games for which the connection to reality has become tenuous at the very least and in some cases stepping over into pure fantasy game. Again that may have been the designers intention in reality, or his understanding of the subject may be insufficient for the designer to fully understand the implication of his/her approach.

Griffiths was by all accounts a gamer, little interested on simulation.

Gentlemen:

That comment saying Paddy Griffith wasn't interested in simulations is soooo wrong. He just put his interest into mediums other than miniatures for the most part.

A friend of mine recently came back from a miniature wargame confab to moan the fact that there were no historical miniature games, only fantasy and SF. I pointed out to him that he has said during discussions like thread here that "All historical wargames are fantasy." So why is he is surprised and disappointed that miniature games are going that way?

Wolfhag made the comment that

Most miniature players are into creating the visuals and a simple set of balanced rules to move units around and take pictures will be adequate. That's the hobby for them. To each his own. From my experience, overall board gamers will use a more historically accurate and detailed set of rules.

Historically accurate, realism. Starting with Don Featherstone, those have been vague, personal opinions in the historical wargame hobby. I seriously doubt that board games provide a more 'historical accurate' set of rules. Board gamers do kick around the words 'simulation' and 'historically accurate' a lot more, but they have made not effort to prove it let alone define what those words mean technically. Just more opinions.

The issues of simplification, cause vs effect mechanics, and a host of other 'terms' and design issues remain, after how many decades, just vague talking points, not real technical tools in creating historically accurate anything. It remains vague and easily termed 'fantasy.'

We are interested in wargames that provide some of the historical challenges and decisions of the contemporary commanders at whatever level or era.

Unless we can determine where and how in specific, objective terms where wargames provide realism, accuracy, history etc. to a buying public, it will remain just fantasy.

I have never been to a Connections conference, though I have had long conversations with many of the participants. I can say that they still struggle with the 'so what?' regarding their many simulations and wargames for the military. [I am not talking about computer simulators and neither are the Connection groups for the most part] The best discussion I had was with an army trainer who designed skill games. For him, the bottom line was how it demonstrably improved participant skills and thinking with real world tasks… the point of all those wargames. That is the weakest part of the who Connections endeavor from what I have seen.

That bottom line is missing from all hobby wargames: i.e. what specific decision-making skills and military history are players interfacing with? That is why Don's questions and topics are still being debated in the same fashion how many decades later.

Just my opinion, you understand.

To be honest in my opinion things are getting better. There are some VERY basic benchmarks that can be used to eliminate the worst wargames simulations, particularly in later periods say WW2 to near present.
However I will declare my bias. I am an engineer so the physical side is more of interest than the phycological side.

So tests, weapon ranges and accuracies and indeed effective ranges can at least be approximated. A good example is say the Underslung grenade launcher. There are pass fail examinations which set out ranges and expected accuracy to class a trooper as competent. While not perfect that gives a rough idea what is expected of the individual armed with that weapon.

There is some open source data on artillery effects planning which can at least eliminate the worst excesses sometimes seen in wargames.

Basic low level tactics manuals indicate how a weapon should be deployed to gain maximum effect. If wargames rules do not demonstrate some reasonable correlation with that data then is is likely to be suspect.

Of course even basic ranges may be an issue. The wargames effect of Non linear ranging implies a time space distortion that is untenable in the real world. It also prevents correct implementation of actual weapon deployment by failing to allow correct target density distributions.

Hence some crude tests are already available, designers seem to make wild unsubstantiated statements as to why such breaches of reality are acceptable but I have never seen any argument that such statements are other than a fantasy of the designer. Because someone can claim the earth is flat does not mean it is, and that the statement can clearly shown to be in error.

Does this show that all parts of the model can be validated, no but at least some parts can be shown to be reasonable approximations.

This is far easier now than in Featherstone's day as far more data is freely available than in his day. Hence things are not the same now.

The idea is that when you design for cause, you find the factors that caused something to occur, and design those factors into your game so that it's likely to occur. When you design for effect, you design the game so that the effect, the result, is a recognizable representation of history. Causes may or may not be reflected, but the goal is the effect, what happened, not why it happened.

[I bolded the line]

Some commentators criticize "design for effect" in wargames. My thesis here is that such criticism is undeserved because "design for cause" is possible only at a low tactical level. From my point of view as a person educated to understand military history, virtually all board wargames, certainly all above a very low tactical level, are necessarily designed for Effect, not for Cause. Designing for Cause is a chimera, something that rarely can actually be done, or if it is, the history will appear "skewed" or wrong.

I should give an example of what I mean by 'vague and non-technical.' The differences between a game designed for causes vs effects . . .

All games are decision-making processes. The player at any one point is offered options/circumstances and makes a decision regarding them, eliciting a result.

Now, what game doesn't provide both causes and effects?
From Wolfhag's description it would seem:

A cause design approach would be to give a unit 10 modifiers based on a host of qualities, morale, leadership, numbers, experience etc. etc. where each of those qualities affect different aspects of a unit's performance. "Why's" of performance. Whereas an effect would be giving the unit a strength of 4 in combat, a "What" and leaving it at that.

Here are the problems with these definitions:
1. ALL wargames provide both, regardless of scale or complexity. It is unavoidable. To suggest that it is the quantity of cause mechanics vs effect mechanics begs the question of 'how much' moves the rules from one to the other category. The same is true if the whole design is for Cause or Effect

2. When I rate a unit with 10 qualities, each of those qualities are effects determinations. What the quality is, not why it is. Wolfhag suggests that designing for cause is a chimera. Well, yeah, as all games do both and from the beginning need to provide a lot of information as quantities, lots of 'what' information rather than 'why.'

3. To make decisions, players want why's as well as what's, particularly when the desire is to experience something of history and the challenges of warfare. To avoid the why's creates a mystery meat situation, lots of what is happening but not why. What do gamers discuss after a game: Why something happened regarding the 'what' happened.

Sam Mustafa many years ago gave a good example of this 'cause' and 'effect' problem. He was play-testing a design of a Pacific War miniatures game. In it, there was a detailed process for resolving multi-plane aerial combat between F4 Wildcats and Zeros. It had approaches, pilot experience, etc. included with several die rolls. The players had no questions or complaints. [This was providing the 'causes' behind the result for the combat.] Sam discovered he could generate the same spread of outcomes with one die roll [the Effect] instead of a series die-rolls for each 'Cause.'

Well, even though the one-die process provided the very same outcomes, the SAME players all felt it was 'unrealistic' and questioned the results. What was their problem? The combat process of multiple die roles was just a list of 'effects' such as pilot experience, all what's instead of any why--but the detailed process did provide causes, the why's.

Because:
1. the causes, the list of conditions for combat was decision-making information, the effects wasn't other than a probability chart.
2. The causes was also historical information, giving the players something tangible to immerse in, rather than a die roll. That 'lack of realism' they complained about was just that. Effects absent the Why's distanced the players from reality. Why do board gamers want detail, why do table-top gamers? I would think it is obvious. Causes, the why's.

So,
1. All games have both causes and effects in their designs, in detail and overall. It is baked in and unavoidable.
2. Decisions are made with the 'why' involved as much as the 'what' in the real world, and
3. I challenge anyone to identify a game designed for cause as opposed to one designed for effect. What you will have is complex vs simple, with both demonstrating a boatload of both cause and effect mechanics.

The whole cause and effect dichotomy is a chimera. The terms and their supposed application mean very little and provide no technical guide as to how to design wargames using those terms. They could, but they don't now.

I said the Connections conference members didn't deal with the 'so what?' aspect of their wargame designs. The article Wolfhag referenced basically demonstrates this. Out of the entire article on upgrading wargame offices and simulation quality, there is a paragraph at the end of the article that says:

The goal here is to better service the decision-making needs of senior leaders and to provide justification for those decisions to the Office of the Secretary Defense and Congress.

Of course. "better service" needs. How to prove that? The paragraph goes on to say:

In his planning guidance, the Commandant identified that this is an area that requires greater focus: We do not currently collect the data we need systematically, we lack the processes and technology to make sense of the data we do collect, and we do not leverage the data we have to identify the decision space in manning, training, and equipping the force.

Think on that. They have no system for determining success and do not currently collect such data in a way to 'leverage' the data they do collect: i.e. establish success and improve performance.

Does the article go on as to how to collect that data to determine the provable benefits of the use of wargames after stating its core importance? Nope. It goes off again on all the wonderful improvements in organization and quality of the designs. The bottom line is that their identified "goal", their bottom line, has no system for collecting data concerning the positive effects of all this training, justifying their existence.

Absolutely. However, any attempts to "balance" are going to be non-historical.

Wolfhag:

I disagree. Balance is nothing more than saying both players have an 'equal' chance at winning.

Design a game with all the history you want. I can 'balance' it by what determines a 'win' for the game. This is very common. A historical battle where one side is going to lose, historically it was unavoidable. That side can have 'victory' conditions that have the player winning by doing as well or better than their historical counterparts. How does that make the game 'non-historical?'

"Balance" through assigning asymmetrical victory conditions to each side works fine. In an historical refight I would say that a player who achieves a better result than his historical counterpart has "won" the game, even if he lost the battle. If each side has an equal chance of achieving their victory conditions then you have a balanced scenario.

History provides with a great number of cases where two roughly equally matched armies lined up opposite each other and set to. We have an equally great number of battles where one side had a significant advantage over the other. Out numbered, out maneuvered, or out classed. These latter situations can be harder to make a satisfying "game" out of. Who wants to begin play knowing they are fated to lose?

Artillery pinning or destroying troops can be a battle winner. But it still takes boots on the ground to take and hold the now vacated enemy territory.

It can be worth questioning if our models provide an accurate picture of likely results. I remember reading the army list notes for the Sea Peoples in one popular set of Ancients rules. The author said that the Sea Peoples must have had near genius generalship to accomplish what they did, as their troops were of poor game rating compared to those of their opponents. My immediate thought was "there must be something wrong with the model if it does not produce results in accord with historical outcomes."

I would not expect every player of Napoleonic French to duplicate Bonaparte's successes. We do however have records of the French army's performance under other commanders, and I would expect that a game would give the French troops appropriate capabilities such that a player of comparable skill would achieve comparable results to his historical counterpart. Give me Napoleon's army at almost any battle and I will likely give you a resounding failure. I do not have much knowledge or skill at the tactics of the period. If a game gives me a great chance of winning just because Napoleon, Wellington, Rommel, Caesar, or Hannibal is the "commander" of miniature army I would not feel it is a fair test of my abilities. If I win I want to win because I outplayed my opponent, not because I got a boost in game factors solely due to my historical counterpart.

"Balanced" armies facing off across a balanced field are what may be wanted for tournaments, consider that this perhaps carried to ultimate end in chess. As a replication of actual warfare it falls short. One thing I enjoy about campaign gaming is the possibility of unequal battles due to the choices of the players before the dice hit the table.

All this talk about balance leaves me a bit lost. It's not something we talk about or even care about. I write at leat 1 scenario each week. The aim is to have a good and interesting game. It its typically attack defence but often has someting in it that makes it not like last time. There is usually an objective that on the face of it looks plausible, sometime it prove not to be. We judge a game soley on how interesting it was and how technically challengeing it was. Games so one sided as to prove no interest are classed as bad by both sides. Who wins counts for nought. The last game was pulled after 5 evenings as it had stalled. However untill the last bound it had been a riveting roller coaster. I had made lots of bad decisions but had managed to rectify at least some of them so had my opponent grimaceing on many occations. We both won, we had a superb challenge. The term balance was never used, there was no need. To me it has no direct impact on a good game. Not sure I could even define in any sence really what a ballenced game was. I can tell you what a bad game is, it's where there is no thought required by either side, the outcome is inevitable and unchallengeing, that not balance that just an awful scenario and yes, occationally I am guilty, sometimes I miss a flaw in a sceario and it becoome boring. An utter disaster is when it just becomes a die rolling excersise. IF WE FIND OURSELVES ON ONE OF THOSE WE ABANDON IMMEDIATELY AS AN UTTER WASTE OF TIME.

Now with a unique scenario I may have trouble deciding what forces look plausible, so some means of assessing relative stength might of helped if I am not a familiar with the weapons systems concerned and the command structure is a bit diffrent. However its very clear "points" systems fail utterly to help in those circumstances as currently the only systems ceated rely on sterile terrain design to make them even vaugely plusible.

"Balance" through assigning asymmetrical victory conditions to each side works fine.

This is accurate, as long as you have victory points and some thought goes into it, you have a game which both players can enjoy. It may end up being unbalanced due to factors outside your control, but that just a new land to discover. However its wise to make sure when you start a game you can end it with some form of result.

If we talk about winning whether to do with balance or not needs to define "win" that of course can be a complex answer. To many people winning is beating the opponent. But a win can be learning something. Playing accurately to role and period

I play online games with group i also wargame with. Many of games reward unrealistic types of play. But we try to play the game as much as we would if we were doing it for "real" even if that means geting less kills or rewards. That for us is a win. Some games are so removed from reality thag one simpley van. Not succeed by playing realistically. Like the story unread of a group of soldiers playing paint ball and being demolished because they were treating it is it was life and death and not a game.
Once they realised this they modified their approach and wkn through their better team work etc .

Wolfhag. Yes IGYG is something that puts me off a set of rules as quickly as loads of dice and tables. 😀

A Game that rewards unrealistic play to me certainly a wargame would make it unplayable. Why would you even bother, pocking your eye with a sharp stick would be as interesting.

Does wargaming have to sink to the level of a football game where winning at any cost including cheating is acceptable? Certainly not for me.

It can be worth questioning if our models provide an accurate picture of likely results.

Dave:
Yes, you can do that questioning, but designers never provide enough information to actually generate an answer. Wolfhag's and some parts of Bill Gray's rule sets are the only ones I know of where enough information is provided to answer such questions.

"My immediate thought was "there must be something wrong with the model if it does not produce results in accord with historical outcomes."

What does that mean, "in accord with historical outcomes?"
Does that mean the French can't win the Battle of Waterloo? How outside some notion of 'historical outcomes' does a game result have to be to be questioned? And how do you answer that question when the whole point of wargames is to provide the possibility of results 'outside historical outcomes?' And one is never given any concrete idea of how initial game mechanics and qualities were determined in the first place.

Not enough information, a complete absence of technical concepts and methodology doom such inquiries to . . .wait for it . . . someone's opinion. Those vague feelings wargamers have.

Simulation design answers that question in technical terms, but it seems to continually escape wargamer and designers' notice.

Ushcha
Because sometimes you play what available when nothing else is. And ad I said there is a distinction between games where you can play realtically and those where you can not.

There's also an irony cheating. When the goal in real war is to be unfair. "Cheating" occurs when the game takes over the war.

UshCha,
A game company needs to make playable games for the majority of players of which very few have had military or combat experience and only a cursory knowledge of history. It's always going to be that way. It's focused on entertainment and not true historical simulation.

An IGYG system tells players what they can do and when because most don't don't know the real tactics. It works great at that and the new players will be familiar with the IGYG system.

Add to that the necessity to make the game fair and balanced (unrealistic), and there is no way to get a Time Competitive game which is what real combat is all about.

Complications arise when you attempt to make an IGYG or unit activation system more historically accurate (Time Competitive) because you need to add a system of special rules and exceptions. Opportunity fire is hard to recreate because it's about the timing between movement and shooting rates. Engagement rates and rate of fire are hard to recreate accurately too. Why? Timing.

Games need to be entertaining so there is always a tradeoff. Attempting to balance historical accuracy with additional rules and abstraction degrades historical accuracy.

Wolfhag

A game company needs to make playable games for the majority of players of which very few have had military or combat experience and only a cursory knowledge of history.

It's always going to be that way. It's focused on entertainment and not true historical simulation.

Wolfhag:
Has anyone told the board game companies, you know, the ones that are more complex and realistic? Any number of computer games? And can't some of those games educate players in more than a cursory knowledge of history. It isn't a static issue and player knowledge isn't either.

And of course, games that are based on history and more than a cursory knowledge of history can't be playable and/or entertaining.

Games need to be entertaining so there is always a tradeoff. Attempting to balance historical accuracy with additional rules and abstraction degrades historical accuracy.

And so?

I've actually found it odd how unrealistic computer games are given what they can mange behind the scenes but almost all end up being the same as a table top games on a computer screen.

There are a few that you in the position of the real commander. In the saddle etc. Sending orders by Adc etc.

I'm also surprised more use hadn't been made for tt games using mobiles phones and apps.

I've actually found it odd how unrealistic computer games are given what they can mange behind the scenes but almost all end up being the same as a table top games on a computer screen.

I'm not a fan of computer games but Combat Mission is very accurate regarding ballistics and armor protection.

Has anyone told the board game companies, you know, the ones that are more complex and realistic? Any number of computer games? And can't some of those games educate players in more than a cursory knowledge of history. It isn't a static issue and player knowledge isn't either.

Funny you should mention that. I'm in Tempe, AZ all week for the ConSimWorld gaming convention. People here are from GMT, Compass, and other major game publishing games. I've shown my game to one of them. He likes it but won't publish it. That's fine because I have Blue Panther games ready to do it.

There are about 30 board games, mostly the "monster games" set up in the area including one that made the Guinness World Record for the largest board game. I think the level of history they portray is very in-depth, especially historical OOBs. I don't think the designers did much to balance the game and make it fair. If you are fighting Gettysburg like the Confeds you are most likely going to lose.

GMT has a good line of AFV combat in Panzer and MBT and has gone through numerous reprints. However, the basic design and game mechanics are from the 1970's. It does a poor job of recreating historical engagement, shooting time, and opportunity fire.

Panzer War is a free miniatures game and is the most historically accurate regarding vehicle, weapons and armor details but no one plays it. My observation is that for miniatures players it's the eye candy that recretes the realism.

And of course, games that are based on history and more than a cursory knowledge of history can't be playable and/or entertaining.

The only thing I can think of is they don't feel there is a demand for them. I would not play any cell phone games but there are people who do.

Wolfhag

"My immediate thought was "there must be something wrong with the model if it does not produce results in accordance with historical outcomes."

Last night Kevin Zucker gave a talk on designing his Napoleon era games. He discussed how he got the artillery CRT wrong and was not getting the results he thought he should get for a particular game. After more detailed research he implemented the new artillery rules and solved the problem.

While historical board games are not modified to be fair and balanced, they are designed and tweaked to get the historical outcome. In that respect, it can be a learning experience. However, it may not be fun to play a side that is going to lose 90% of the time but it is a challenge.

If you have a rulebook of 90+ pages I hope there is something in there you can learn about the historical aspects of the battle and real tactics.

Wolfhag

I used to play combat mission. My issues is that it's basically a table top game. So I spent most of my time thinking I'd rather being playing one.

Ive found out and had confirmed a number of things thtough playing "computer" games.

These devices allow all manner of thjngs to be done to make games more immersive but we're still playing games like it's the 19th century.

Last night Kevin Zucker gave a talk on designing his Napoleon era games. He discussed how he got the artillery CRT wrong and was not getting the results he thought he should get for a particular game. After more detailed research he implemented the new artillery rules and solved the problem.

Wolfhag:
I assume that Kevin gave more details of this process. The first question would be 'how did he know the CRT was 'wrong?'
Two, what research did he do. He has to have a clear question being asked to do effective research. What was the question?

And of course, how did he know he solved 'the problem?'

I know you weren't delving into those details mentioning Kevin's presentation. I would hope he did provide some of those answers. Too often I hear or read of such descriptions and the determination of what was 'wrong' and the 'solution' to the problem are actually just 'feelings.'

We of course should be looking at the informstion we have available. However little or much. But…. as we've discussed before, these are games, experiences, whether for pleasure or professionally, are about how they feel to take part in. Either the feeling we gain by playing the or the feeling we might be trying to recreate.
And even the most data driven player/designer has a feeling from that experience

McLaddie,
I assume that Kevin gave more details of this process. The first question would be 'how did he know the CRT was 'wrong?'

IIRC it was a battle where the French outnumbered the Allies but the Allies had more cavalry and artillery (Eylau?). The Allied artillery did not perform historically in the original game. I'm not sure of the research but he did see a historical reference where he made the change to get the desired results. It wasn't just a "feeling".

The problem was "solved" when he got the historic results.

Wolfhag

Getting the right "feel" is important but it should be based on something like experience, historical/AAR info, etc.

My system is based on historical timing values of weapons platforms, guns, and crew performance. Often new players will remark that the game does not feel right. I'll inquire why and they'll say it does not perform like some other game system designed to be fair and balanced or where the Germans have a distinct advantage.

In many games, an IS-2 with a 30-second reload time fires as often as a 37mm gun that can reload and fire every 4-6 seconds. Not in my system. The Russians developed the IS-2 for assaults on defensive positions, not tank-tank combat.

Often the players picking the German Panthers and Tigers are very disappointed when Sherman 75s hands them a loss. Why? Historically the Sherman was the fastest tank to engage a new target to shoot first and in a meeting engagement might get off 2-3 shots before the German fired once. Most players have never experienced that in a game.

After D-Day, the Sherman 75 had WP shells which increased their effectiveness by screening and forcing the Germans to fall back.

The proper use of the Reverse Slope Defense allows the Sherman to pop up to a hull-down position, shoot, and fall back before the Germans can engage them. Totally unfair!

The Germans will have a big advantage when ambushing Shermans but then the American player will fall back and call in artillery. During the HE and Smoke/WP barrage, the Shermans maneuvered to flanks.

Using historic tactics and reserves can help the Germans overcome these disadvantages. It also helps when the American player uses the wrong tactics and charges straight ahead.

The game is rarely fair and balanced, making it more historically accurate but less enjoyable for the losing side. Reality Sucks.

One of the unhistoric problems I see in most game setups is that the unit density per kilometer of the front is way too high, there is no room to maneuver, and defenders hardly ever fall back to alternate defending positions. Too often both sides go for the closest hull down position and stay there for the rest of the game.

Wolfhag

Yes if we have historic data then that should indeed trump our preconceptions.

That was one of the op points. The claim that playing historically wasn't much fun. But as fun is subjective and a feeling it's very open.

Of course once we have less data then we are basing it on our feelings on what should be happening. That may be more or less informed.

As to overcrowded tables. Well people want their models on the table and kn there fkr as long as possible.
I like the models but not at the expense of more accuracy in the experience.

Again something in the OP. We should be in another rooms viewing the tap from our PoV on the table, through a phone camera these days.

But we don't see games like that very often… probably because people don't feel like it… 😉🤔

IRC it was a battle where the French outnumbered the Allies but the Allies had more cavalry and artillery (Eylau?). The Allied artillery did not perform historically in the original game. I'm not sure of the research but he did see a historical reference where he made the change to get the desired results. It wasn't just a "feeling".

The problem was "solved" when he got the historic results.

*Sigh* Here is one reason 'things stay the same.' Kevin is using the same methods he was back in 1980 to come to 'reasonable outcomes' for one battle. Any question of how the CRT worked with other battles, or did that require another adjustment?

Again something in the OP. We should be in another rooms viewing the tap from our PoV on the table, through a phone camera these days.

It all depends on what 'realism' is the focus of the rules. Wolfhag's rules don't require that for 'realism.'

Yes if we have historic data then that should indeed trump our preconceptions.

That was one of the op points. The claim that playing historically wasn't much fun. But as fun is subjective and a feeling it's very open.

Well, then what fun is specifically offered by Historical Wargames if playing historically isn't much fun.

Again, same issues, comments from the 1980s.

depends on what 'realism' is the focus of the rules. Wolfhag's rules don't require that for 'realism.'

Clearly i hadnt said other wise. I hoped it was refering to crowded tables etc. And not to a case where one is commanding one or a few tanks.

As to fun… its subjective and the fact that someone claimed that sticking to historic data would not make a fun game

we've recently had someone here say that wargames shouldn't be fun…

and hence the more things change the more they stay the same.

*Sigh* Here is one reason 'things stay the same.' Kevin is using the same methods he was back in 1980 to come to 'reasonable outcomes' for one battle. Any question of how the CRT worked with other battles, or did that require another adjustment?

What other choices did he have?

If you are designing a historical wargame on a certain battle isn't the goal of the designer to have a historical outcome? I don't know of a universal system that can fit any battle in a specific historical battle.

As to fun… its subjective and the fact that someone claimed that sticking to historic data would not make a fun game

I agree and I have rarely seen a person's mind changed by any other systems or suggestions.

In a tactical 1:1 level game, realism for me is units "performing" the way they did historically and not attempting to tweak unit performances to get the desired historical result. Reality sucks and it's not much fun on the losing side.

Historically, orders are not executed immediately, so it takes time so my system is Time Competitive using seconds as a timing mechanism.

Otto seems to agree with me.

Performance depends on crew training and expertise. This is from the Sherman manual:

I designed the timing values to give the above results.

When you observe a battle in progress there is action and movement that can be predicted.

Realistically a unit moving at 20kph moves 5.5m/second. It does so in my system in a very playable manner, transparent to the player.

In my system, moving units have a movement marker showing the direction of movement and speed. The markers show how far the unit will realistically move in 10 seconds (the marker is divided into 10 equal segments). Looking at the image above, you can estimate where moving units could be in 10-30 seconds just as you could on a real battlefield. When the unit halts it removes the marker. To turn pivot the marker.

The Panther D model turret traversed at about 6 degrees per second. To fire at a target 90 degrees to your left or right historically it took about 15 seconds. It does so in my system.

Opportunity fire is very difficult to historically simulate in an IGYG game.

The above image demonstrates how it is realistically modeled. The target is in the shooter's LOS for a maximum of six seconds if the target moves straight at its current speed. If it takes more than 6 seconds to react, aim, and fire the target is out of the LOS. No special rules or exceptions are needed.

I think I've given a good example of physically modeling movement and action to perform historically.

Is it "realistic"? So people would say no. Why? Because I am micro-managing the units and they are doing exactly as ordered. In their mind a battle is all chaos, no plan survives combat and as the overall commander, you don't have control of all units.

They prefer a version of IGYG or unit activation with cards or dice. When a unit fails an activation roll they'll create in their mind some historical reason like failed communication, crew delay in executing the order, the unit stopped because they thought they saw a threat or minefield, etc.

Realism is in the person's mind and the mind can be fooled by false perceptions, wrong historical data (German tanks were always better than American tanks), and special effects (models and terrain).

Physics and documented historical performance should create realism in a game but won't unless players are familiar with the historical performance of weapons platforms and crews. Then there is the bias of players who have created their own systems, like me of course <grin>.

The timing values used to execute an order are slightly variable and dependent on crew expertise. When a unit shoots there is a 5% chance of something historical going wrong: misfire, jam, gunner choked, the wrong round was loaded, etc. There is also a small chance of the round ricocheting too as historically they did ricochet.

we've recently had someone here say that wargames shouldn't be fun

If your goal in playing the game is to do a low-level study of unit performance and tactics and simulate that in the game, you are attempting to recreate what your academic research proves. I think that's UshCha's goal and mine to a certain extent. An academic pursuit does not need to be fun but it can be very satisfying and can be playable too.

and hence the more things change the more they stay the same.

My opinion is that most rule sets use variations of IGYG, unit activations by die rolls or cards, command points, turn interrupts, etc. which are all subjective and not very historical. It comes down to player preference.

Wolfhag

What other choices did he have?

*Sigh* Forty years of simulation development, for starters.

If you are designing a historical wargame on a certain battle isn't the goal of the designer to have a historical outcome? I don't know of a universal system that can fit any battle in a specific historical battle.

It is A goal. There are several in designing a simulation. A 'historical outcome' could be reached with mechanics that have nothing to do with history. Process in playing the game is as important as getting to an 'outcome.' And any 'universal system' I was thinking about was Napoleonic. Artillery wasn't different for every battle. If it was, military men could not have made much sense with any doctrine regarding their use. Like Sherman Tanks being different in every battle. Crews could be different, but that would be another issue, and again, not completely different for every battle.

I realize that Kevin could have been thinking of all sorts of things in deciding what he did. It is just that when I was critiquing his games in 1986 for Fire & Movement, his design process was described exactly the same way with the same 'goals.'

Wolfhag, regardless of the amount of data he had vs you, your design approach was quite different from his as was your 'outcomes.'