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

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.

Sure. Anything we arw doing should make us want to engage with it. Whether we consider that "fun" is as much a semantic point. Clearly none of us what out motivations are doing this as a punishment or penance so "enjoyment" is involved. Whether it's a by product or a key feature. And once we're still having a similar discussion 50 years later. TMTCTMTSTS

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.

Yes. People are locked in to mechanics and approaches because they ate familiar of what they have done. That form of conservatism is and was a thing in and outside wargaming.
Some are interested in different things. I was interested when I first read you talking about the armour rules because they looked at the problem in a fresh, way, though of course a logical and accurate way.
Too many people tread old paths but also reject new information and approaches because it doesn't fit their idea of what thjngs should do, whether fun or accuracy.

Here is an existing system developed by the British Army that can be used for almost any period for operational-level games. It's a Time Competitive game that uses one-hour turns to measure how long it takes for a unit to plan an attack. The longer they plan, the more resources they'll have.

However, remember, as you are planning your attack the enemy is planning and building up their defenses:

This is what the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame had to say about it, based on operational experience in WW2 and Korea. Note, this is PLANNING time. This in addition to execution, which includes moving time, and typical battle duration for a 2km advance estimated at 2 to 4 hours.

Copyright Martin Rapier and John Curry 2008
British Army Tactical Wargame QRS

Source, British Army Wargame 1956, available from the History of Wargaming Project Scales,

Major units are battalions (infantry), regiments (tank, arty), minor units squadrons/btty.

2km squares, 1 hour turns. Sqdns may only operate with Inf Bn. Amd Div may organise as mixed tank/inf combat teams.

Turn sequence
Declare moves (for the coming hour)
Declare future actions (digging in, battle plans, recce etc) with times and locations

link

PDF link

Battle Planning:

Bttn.Pre-planned Bttn counter attack w. Tank Sqdn plus Arty Regt. 2 hours

Bttn.All other Bttn attacks with basic support (Troop/Squadron/Battery) 3 hours

Bttn.Bttn attack with Tank Troop/Sqdn plus Arty Regt. 4 hours

Bde.2 Bttn Pre-planned Counter Attk w. Squadron/Regiment + Arty Regt 2 hours

Bde.2 Bn attack w. Troop/Squadron each + Arty Regt 7 hours

Bde.2 Bn attack w. Squadron each + 2 Artillery Regts 10 hours

Bde.2 Bn attack w Squadron/Regiment each + 3 Artillery Regts 12 hours

Div. 2 Brigade attack w. Tank Regt each, all Div arty, reserve Bde 24 hours

Hasty attacks (Bn/Bde) only required 1 hour of planning time, but no Div artillery available

Thanks to Martin Rapier

I would expect better commanders and staff are quicker than inferior enemy commanders. Logistics should matter too.

Wolfhag

I did say toung in cheek that wargames should not be fun. It seems English humor does not always translate well acrodd the Pond. I do not think wargames need to be laugh out load fun as some seem to think. To be hugely enjoyable for me it must be challengeing and enlightening. You do not see top level amature who do it for "fun" laughing while they play but do come back for more every week despite the effort needed.

Thre is undoutedly a HUGE level of conservatism in wargaming. Frome those that cling to poorly defined metal casting, to Game mechaisms that are "traditional" but long since outdated. While in some ways things are better, the Traditionalists seem in the accendency. There seems to be an increase in desire for what was regadless of its merit's. Like collecting old cars, they are of poor prrformance, ecologically a disaster and unsafe by moderen standards but folk cling to them. There is a room for car history but to pine for what was is absurd (im my opinion of course).

Well I'm English. 😉 and that was just the tag line. You have a certajn view on gaming others have there's. The OP stands we're still discussing fun/accuracy and what a game should be. 😉
I think I can have a serious game and still laugh out loud.

I'd say there's more to collecting vintage cars than sticking to old rules.

A pertinent one is that vintage cars can still be a pleasure to drive and were generally efficient in the context of the time. I didn't like playing many conventional rules even when they were "state of the art"
Of course rejection of the past I always a little odd on another level when we spned so much energy studying and playing in it.

At the end of the day I don't care what others do beyond knowing why I don't want to do it or If I borrow or get inspired.

And again my OP was the observation was that 50 years ago Featherstone and Griffiths were suggestions breaking with tradition and were getting similar push back.

Wolfhag 👍🏻👌🏼 I know John and Martin through WD. The rules are similar to things I went through with Brigade sized Vietnam wargames

Thre is undoutedly a HUGE level of conservatism in wargaming. Frome those that cling to poorly defined metal casting, to Game mechaisms that are "traditional" but long since outdated. While in some ways things are better, the Traditionalists seem in the accendency. There seems to be an increase in desire for what was regadless of its merit's. Like collecting old cars, they are of poor prrformance, ecologically a disaster and unsafe by moderen standards but folk cling to them. There is a room for car history but to pine for what was is absurd (im my opinion of course).

I'd have to agree. There are many knowledgeable designers now but it seems like they are recycling old ideas. The big publishers will continue this trend as long as people buy it. Even when players tweak the rules they are generally recycling old ideas.

I spent a week at ConSim World which specializes in monster board games. Most are at an operational level for WWII global, East or West Front. These games take 3-5 days to play with players for about 12 hours each day. If this were boring the same guys would not be attending every year so there is enjoyment they get.

From my observation, it did not appear anyone was having "fun" in the traditional way of outbursts of laughing, bantering, etc. It seemed to be a cerebral pursuit of analyzing the map, maneuvering the units, and combat. Someone walking into the room might mistake it for a library. I guess that's the culture of board gamers.

That's a stark contrast to miniature conventions where the room is normally pretty loud, some players are dressed in garb that matches the game period, and there are outbursts of laughter. Discussion mostly on the visuals of the units and terrain. Their culture is different.

I ran miniature games at conventions where I had to raise my voice to be heard and at the table next to me the players were loud and obnoxious but everyone seemed to be having fun.

Another trend I've noticed at miniature conventions is that more games use a scale greater than 28mm. The buildings and terrain look like pristine dioramas but do not resemble a town or battlefield fought over as there is very little damage or rubble.

The only real change I've seen in board gaming in the last 20 years is the use of cards for events and activations. It seems all new games being published have at least one card deck. The graphics and maps have improved quite a bit too.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, Interesting your comment on the Con Sim world game aligns with our sort of fun. That's why sometimes I consider our games to be 3D board games. The pieces are just easily identified gaming pieces to help convey the situation as it develops. To us they have no other merit. From my limited perspective, the over emphasis on visuals was not as prevalent in the past. Perhaps the absence of more detailed figures meant that the hobby attraction the model oriented players was far less in the past.

Depending on where you stand this could either be a good or bad thing. Personally I don't consider it a move forward, It can deter folks who have little or no interest in the figures but lots on the game. The occasional rabid outburst of "we hate unpainted figures" epitomizes something I don't really remember to the same extent 30 t0 40 years ago.

It can deter folks who have little or no interest in the figures but lots on the game.

There is a true dichotomy between the players who just want a game and those who love the visuals. I started as a pure gamer, happy with black and white board games, to one who loves the bling of figure gaming today. I feel the visual can breathe new life into older, very simple, game systems, but its makes it very difficult to get into the hobby. It takes years to develop the skills required to paint up a decent army and create a nice playing area. My painting skills are nowhere near as good as the true masters, but I have achieved a skill level where the mass of figures on a nice playing area looks good. But even using my low bar it can take 6 months to paint up a force mix, which is a bar that is too high for many new gamers. I suspect this may be one reason skirmish rules have become so popular. 3mm figures may be a good option, but even in that case it takes too much effort for new gamers. My current solution is to always build up a pair of opposing force mixes. That way new players can get a taste of figure gaming and can then start developing the skill necessary to paint up a force mix. However its an issue for new gamers. I suspect the warlord system may be the way of the future.

pfmodel, that is not really all of it. The obsession with the figures attarcts folk not so into the game. Woilhags post of 26th July says its all, it attaracts more of those intereted in the figures and less so in the game. Yes you can get folk into gaming faster by having a spare army, I have that, but the crowd in many cases are now more about the figures than the game. I am lucky we have a few who really are into the history and the game, not obsessed with the figures. New game in the major commecial side definitely strive for the laugh out loud than the quiet determinartion that Wolfhag describes. That croed buys more figures, where the money really is.

From my limited perspective, the over emphasis on visuals was not as prevalent in the past. Perhaps the absence of more detailed figures meant that the hobby attraction the model oriented players was far less in the past.

It's gotten much better in the last 20 years. Special effects at movies have, too, as have the components of board games.

I've observed at conventions potential players looking at tables being set up to determine which game they'll sign up for. Their decision is normally based on which one looks the coolest and not the rules. There is nothing wrong with playing with someone else's toys that you'll never have yourself.

I think miniatures have a better chance of getting new players involved because of the visuals and the rules systems which are similar to non-historical games.

If you look at the TMP After Action Reports sections you'll see a lot of close-ups of the figures and terrain with discussions about which suppliers and painting techniques were used. Not much on real tactics.

The best AARs were from Just Jack (MIA?) on his VN games. He gave a real blow-by-blow description of the action.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, this is the point, too much style over substance. At least for our group the emphasis is on the game not the modeling that to me is a completely different hobby. Guys who are modeling first often, but not always, make poor gamers in my experience, more bothered about painting new models than getting to play well with the models they already have. This skcim over attitude is epitomized by the oft quoted phrase "Why play one period when you can play them all". Making such folk a "Jack of all trades master on none", not an interesting opponent as far as me personally is concerned, as they lack the detailed skills for a challenging game. You don't get a good game between a new starter and a keen armature who has played and trained for years. I guess it's how you consider the hobby has progressed or digressed over the years.

Wolfhag, this is the point, too much style over substance. At least for our group the emphasis is on the game not the modeling that to me is a completely different hobby. Guys who are modeling first often, but not always, make poor gamers in my experience, more bothered about painting new models than getting to play well with the models they already have. This skim over attitude is epitomized by the oft quoted phrase "Why play one period when you can play them all". Making such folk a "Jack of all trades master on none", not an interesting opponent as far as me personally is concerned, as they lack the detailed skills for a challenging game. You don't get a good game between a new starter and a keen armature who has played and trained for years. I guess it's how you consider the hobby has progressed or digressed over the years.

I think there is a real narrowing of focus to judge an entire hobby on the conventions it holds, let alone on how different those conventions can be when compared.

I've observed at conventions potential players looking at tables being set up to determine which game they'll sign up for. Their decision is normally based on which one looks the coolest and not the rules.

To say there is much more emphasis on the figures and table displays for the entire hobby again is convention-centric. Attractive tables and figures draw crowds. Attractive games draw players, particularly if they haven't played those particular rules. It is the place were the 'artists' can display their works to a greater numbers of gamers. No surprise here.

Tabletop conventions tend to be rules-lite, with less emphasis on rules altogether. Many are made up for conventions. I know gamers who brought a Roark's Drift game to a convention without rules and he and his partner made them up as they when. No one noticed. I have played games using SHAKO that in most cases I wouldn't recognize because the rules have been 'trimmed down.' That's Okay, but a totally different playing experience. That is true of most convention games. [If we are doing generalizations here.]

Wolfhag wrote:

I spent a week at ConSim World which specializes in monster board games. From my observation, it did not appear anyone was having "fun" in the traditional way of outbursts of laughing, bantering, etc. It seemed to be a cerebral pursuit of analyzing the map, maneuvering the units, and combat. Someone walking into the room might mistake it for a library. I guess that's the culture of board gamers.

Note the name 'ConSim' Board wargame designers and players regularly use the words 'simulation' and 'realism' unapologetically, even without ever defining them in game design terms. Those 'cerebral' players have basically been chased out of tabletop gaming altogether and you fellows sound like you are missing their approach to wargaming.

I guess it's how you consider the hobby has progressed or digressed over the years.

Well, how do you define progress in a hobby? It isn't simply change. Something has to get better. Anyone who has been in the RC airplane hobby for a long time could tell you in specific terms how the hobby has definitely progressed. The hobby offers more of what the hobby is about, in better quality, variety, and flight opportunities.

So, how much has the tabletop wargaming hobby improved in providing hobbyists with the principle basics of the hobby. The basics being what makes Historical tabletop wargaming distinct from say any old game, fantasy, non-historical wargames or even model trains.

Certainly, it could be an increase in the quality and fun found in the hobby. How is that measured in our hobby? "Old timers could tell." Better figures? More scales?

I know the general answers wargamers give outsiders when asked--what is historical wargaming all about, but that isn't the general answer wargamers give each other within the hobby.

I would say the consensus in this thread is that the hobby hasn't progressed, other than nicer figures and scenery, which suggests folks know what 'progress' is missing.

McLaddie you are right about RC. In that the DC Hobby has not really "changed". Progressed is definitely the word. The emphasis has not really changed, the gear and the models get better (Helicopters with Gyros WOOPEE). And cycling, bikes, how have they progressed, I would have had to give up with heart trouble but for the rise of the power assisted bike has allowed me to continue, however the changes are simply technological.

However Wargames and yes, its a personal view perhaps, the term digressed is perhaps incorrect, changed may be a better term.

More and more to me it has shifted emphasis to be far more about the models than the game. Is the old wargaming dead, no but it is maybe on life support. I find it staggering that our rules still sell 15 yeras on we assumed about 2 years and someboudy would have buit on our work and done better. I would like to think it's our genius, but alas, it's equally likely to be that it's "old" wargames hobby oriented where a period and it's history were key. When playing was important and learning rules was Ok becuse you played them regularly and got to understand history from the. The new "Rules light" systems just lack any substance and are suitable only for very occational use, without the basic requirement of having a player to have any historical knowledge of the period. They are desidned for folk who pick a period by its models not its history.

However Wargames and yes, its a personal view perhaps, the term digressed is perhaps incorrect, changed may be a better term.

Maybe "big boys playing pretend with toys"

I think it boils down to what is entertaining for the individual.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag I am not saying it is not. But now it's far more figure intensive. In the old days there were minimal figures and ranges so it attracted players. It may be that more of such folk (modelers) now play wargames as I admit, if you go to some shows the figure standard is that of pure modelers not folk who just want a reasonable gaming piece.
It's ironic that the commercial figure manufacturers want the game to be miniature over emphasized as there is where the money is, so the hobby changes, potentially driving folk to the board game scene where play does not require modelling skill or time, alas they lose out on the great advantage of 3D boards at a larger scale, but it's easy to understand why.

The longer this diacuasion goes on the more it aligns with my observation… the more thjngs change the more they stay the same.. 😉🤔😀

To be honest this thread has made me think, things are not the same, they are in some ways better but im many ways far worse. The chase for history has faded and nd the rise of gimicky mechanisms and an obsession with minatures at the expence of the game, has changed the game for at me at least in a negative way.

Do I forsee the end of wargames no, but wargames as I know it yes. The simulation side is being lost in Bling and dummed down rules.

This discussion as many before it mirror much of what I read there.
How it gels outside of here, that's something else.

Better or worse is a subjective personal appreciation. I see more options for how things are done even if many ideas are .ore entrenched.

We're still talking whether it should be History or game.

Certainly for me in the past the discussion abaout the "game" rather than history was not one I am familiar with. The very early books in the UK though crude were all about history (barring HG wells but that was in the very far past) and proably not really a precuser to the 1960's rise of wargames. To me that is a "new" thing that seems to be associated with the trend to dump the game for the minis.

I think it boils down to what is entertaining for the individual.

Of course it does. Always had. When hasn't it???

The question is what the individual finds entertaining with
historical tabletop games vs all the other kinds of games. What does the hobby offer the individual that is unique to it? I hear a lot of roars and laughter with fantasy and SF table top games too. So why are some people playing one type and not the other?

UshCha:

I was thinking of the RC plane clubs, the tournaments and airfields, the types of planes and the levels of play that are delineated. Not just the products, but those too.

We're still talking whether it should be History or game.

Gamesman6: If we are, then there is a primary cause of the same old, same old discussion. Why it should be that dichotomy, I have no idea. The hobby is historical wargames, i.e. both. If we haven't found coherent ways to offer both, then there is the problem.

So why are some people playing one type and not the other?

It depends on their interest. Some specialize, and some are eclectic. The rules and mechanics can be very similar and even interchangeable (variations of IGYG). In Sci-Fi and fantasy games, the discussions are about What-Ifs that will never exist. Historical is about real stuff.

From my observation, it comes down to playing the game mechanics which are variable enough to generate a type of FOW where you don't know what's going to happen next.

Last night, I played What a Tanker, and it focused on how a player's die rolls determine what he can do. It is more historical than other AFV-centric games because you perform real actions to engage and shoot. In most games, orders are magically executed immediately.

History or game
It's mostly a game because the rules and mechanics are not historical. The culture is about entertainment, social interaction, and discussion of the visuals generating the historical portrayal.

Instant gratification and great visuals generate entertainment because it's boring learning the rules. That's why I don't think anything is going to change. The miniatures and terrain make it historical.

I'm working on a dumbed-down version of my game for the miniature players. If players really wanted a more historical, detailed, and accurate game GMTs MBT, and Panzer games are easily converted to miniatures as the rules were originally intended for miniatures. Panzer War is free too. I don't see any takers.

I don't see any problem. People play what they like, not what we want them too.

Wolfhag

What a Tanker Historic, that is a real ow bar . Not all rules fail to have some level of restriction on what and when. Simple force represntation and simple control mecxhanisms can make it less than 100% command without such daft ideas as terminating a bound.

What is changed is the rise of the to me excessively detailed minatures (personal opinion of course) has attracted a diffrent crowd from the originals who were closer to what you describe as booard gamers. Me, rather thah simply railing against the wind I create my own, much more simple minatuers, minimal painting, Ultra compact and cheap. perfect when its about the battle not the minatures.

That is a big diffrence from when I was young, the 3D printer, It allows non-artists like me to make your own stoff. I tried in the old days but lead casting in plaster of paris moulds is not great for the average teeneger. Considereing a basic 3D printer is less than a modest phone cost is nolonger an issue.

I've been shooting bows since I could walk… I've shot bows of all types…. but to me shooting self bows, like long bows is archery. Modern compounds or composites with triggers sights stabilisers clickers and all the modern gizmos.. well why both shooting a bow.
Of course the people who shoot like that think they are optimising the aspects they are interested in. Or fencing. The ideal of getting more accurate scoring by usjng electronic equipment has back fired and turned it in to a high speed game of tag with competitor dramatics that could teach soccer players a thing or two.

My decision is made because while I want to enjoy what I do. I want to feel it does something beyond that specialised line. That it makes me "better" more broadly. It makes my general decision process better. It gives me insight to genral principles or in to history. Etc.

History or game
It's mostly a game because the rules and mechanics are not historical. The culture is about entertainment, social interaction, and discussion of the visuals generating the historical portrayal.

Here is a foundational problem in wargame design. The insistence on this dichotomy because "because the rules and mechanics are not historical."

Wolfhag:

So the History in Historical wargaming is generated by the visuals, social interaction and discussion? The actual process of playing the rules for hours is not historical in any fashion?

So much for your efforts with your WWII tack rules. You say the mechanics you worked so long on aren't historical or relate to past history. So much for all your posts to the contrary.

And you wonder why fantasy and SF TT games are dominating miniatures gaming.

Its interesting in this thread that its all about skill. pretty much as an independant aariable. Now I'm not saying you need to change to my system, that would be mad.

However in defining ythe benerfits or lack of them in terms of starting level, should you not considere the other states and how they are handeled in the same rules.
In modelling one parameter only, you are not accounting for feart fire fatigue or ammunition.

It certainly would be interesting for me to underestand the realtionshiops others impose on the system as the letter factors also effcet perfomance of the parameters listed. For instance Fred mentins several games that heve 6 plus standards, this is high detail, so to make it usefull the other factors I assume are delt with in equal detail, so how is that achieverd? A chain is only as good as its weakest link, so a model is only as good as its poorest parameter definition. Massive contoll of troop type need to have details on how it degrades with combat in a single action to make it worth having, bigger battles may see it rise and fall as it recieves more ammunition and or is replaced. Cetainly in some ww2 battles some units were replaced begfore the end of the daty so they could be rearnmed, they had effectively been degraded.

History or game
It's mostly a game because the rules and mechanics are not historical. The culture is about entertainment, social interaction, and discussion of the visuals generating the historical portrayal.

Cleasrly you operate in a diffrent world. In mine viuals are not discussed as I percieve it in our game. There will be discussion about the "patterns" of deployment and losses, about the key features of the terrain but not of it's dipiction and it's implications, some of which may not always understood by one or both sides. The discussions leads on dispositions, strategy and whether the action lined up to a reasonable extent with reality. Gamey bits if found, are discussed and possible solutions offerd to make the game more enjoyable by eliminating them. This latter have reduced to almost none after 15 years.

Hell somtimes we don't put trees out on the woods if time is short ad nobody moans. We do prefere a few trees it hels visulise the relationship to the contoures but offten they are just 2D versions.

So your definition of an enjoyable game seems close to opposite of our. We detest gimmicks im mechanisms, very clever faster ways of doing things are appreciated but we have yet top see any. The card "Thing" is an utter waste for folk who play regularly. It may be the make up of who, their interests and familiarity with the priod makes our experiences so wildly diffrent.

I have as much intrest in SF as I have Football, NONE. Folk are perfectly entitled to play what they want but it's a diffrent hobby, so for me lumping them together, you may as well include foootball it has as much in common with our game.

Painting to me is not part of the hobby, slap a bit of colour on and that it. I love russians, geen with black boots and weapon and somtimes just green. Who can tell with a figure 12mm tall and it adds nothing to the game and even that takes away vital scenario planning time.

Its interesting in this thread that its all about skill. pretty much as an independant aariable. Now I'm not saying you need to change to my system, that would be mad.

However in defining ythe benerfits or lack of them in terms of starting level, should you not considere the other states and how they are handeled in the same rules.
In modelling one parameter only, you are not accounting for feart fire fatigue or ammunition.

It certainly would be interesting for me to underestand the realtionshiops others impose on the system as the letter factors also effcet perfomance of the parameters listed. For instance Fred mentins several games that heve 6 plus standards, this is high detail, so to make it usefull the other factors I assume are delt with in equal detail, so how is that achieverd? A chain is only as good as its weakest link, so a model is only as good as its poorest parameter definition. Massive contoll of troop type need to have details on how it degrades with combat in a single action to make it worth having, bigger battles may see it rise and fall as it recieves more ammunition and or is replaced. Cetainly in some ww2 battles some units were replaced begfore the end of the daty so they could be rearnmed, they had effectively been degraded.

History or game
It's mostly a game because the rules and mechanics are not historical. The culture is about entertainment, social interaction, and discussion of the visuals generating the historical portrayal.

Cleasrly you operate in a diffrent world. In mine viuals are not discussed as I percieve it in our game. There will be discussion about the "patterns" of deployment and losses, about the key features of the terrain but not of it's dipiction and it's implications, some of which may not always understood by one or both sides. The discussions leads on dispositions, strategy and whether the action lined up to a reasonable extent with reality. Gamey bits if found, are discussed and possible solutions offerd to make the game more enjoyable by eliminating them. This latter have reduced to almost none after 15 years.

Hell somtimes we don't put trees out on the woods if time is short ad nobody moans. We do prefere a few trees it hels visulise the relationship to the contoures but offten they are just 2D versions.

So your definition of an enjoyable game seems close to opposite of our. We detest gimmicks im mechanisms, very clever faster ways of doing things are appreciated but we have yet top see any. The card "Thing" is an utter waste for folk who play regularly. It may be the make up of who, their interests and familiarity with the priod makes our experiences so wildly diffrent.

I have as much intrest in SF as I have Football, NONE. Folk are perfectly entitled to play what they want but it's a diffrent hobby, so for me lumping them together, you may as well include foootball it has as much in common with our game.

Painting to me is not part of the hobby, slap a bit of colour on and that it. I love russians, geen with black boots and weapon and somtimes just green. Who can tell with a figure 12mm tall and it adds nothing to the game and even that takes away vital scenario planning time.

Certainly to me the term Minature Gaming has little relevance, it's such a wide umbrella. Its much like "sport" quite meaninless. I loved Kite Buggying" and canoeing,
now at 70 to old and too much artheritus. However lumping me in with Football, Rugby and Boxing is pointless, I have zero interet in them so what use is the category.

There is notional divide I see in games, whether wargames or RPGs is that accuracy or realism come at the expense of greater complexity and less "fun"

That may superficially be true as in many cases in the quest for more fidelity people turn up the resolution in the design and process.

Realism for me is in the decision making process, in command and control and out comes etc. Not in the resolution on specifc processes or the mechcincs we arw forced to use to implement them which imo should be as invisible as possible. Otherwise we are operating in hisenberg uncertainty principle even more than we are already.

As to whether game or war… no simulation is real whoever is doing or designing it. Because we know it's simulation… we can however make things more or less real.

Again that's about reflecting the choices the role would be running under constraints of time and limited informstion. Something most table top games do poorly because we are running the machine as well as driving it.

And as we go on with the discussion we keep proving the title of the OP 😉🙃

Ps
And many design decisions are made becuase what is simulated and played is looked at through the lense of how easy it can be run through conventional of familiar processes… adding to the usual conservatism we can all experience.

And as we go on with the discussion we keep proving the title of the OP 😉🙃

Exactly.

Yet, Historical Gamers are pretty clear about what they want. Historical wargame designers, [TT and board] are also clear, telling gamers what they think gamers want to hear about their designs.

Yet when the question is asked, how do we design the games described by gamers and designers, the discussion goes around and around and end up in the same place: with "People play what they like, not what we want them to." [deep, never guessed that.[sarcasm]

A that is the final word on historical game design--It's like watching a intellectual NASCAR race, the minute a pertinent design question is asked, everyone turns left following the same old track, the finish line being "People play what they like." As if that is the final word in historical game design.

Gamesman6

There is notional divide I see in games, whether wargames or RPGs is that accuracy or realism come at the expense of greater complexity and less "fun"

Personally ther is a leve; of oversimplification (not alas untypical of some moderen rules) that the decision making is flawed as they are so simplified they do not represent even vaufgely the real battle space decisions. These to me most definitely are no "fun" whatsoever.

Realism for me is in the decision making process, in command and control and out comes etc. Not in the resolution on specifc processes or the mechcincs we arw forced to use to implement them which imo should be as invisible as possible. Otherwise we are operating in hisenberg uncertainty principle even more than we are already.

Again this has logical flaws. If you machine gun does not operate correctly (many rules fail dismally on this) then your deployment is unrealistic. Unrealistic basic conditions make for unrealistic decisions.

You cannot reasonably simplify rifle and machine guns to have the same ramnge. If you do then the optimum decisions in the game will be at odds with the real world. You have to have credible real world models in order to allow credible in game decisions. Ego the quest for simple CAN fail utterly if key patameters are not modelled adequately. Note adequately is not "perfectly" you do not need to model every part of a machine gun to adequately moddel its effrect on tactics. If you were modelling its effeciencey or cost effectiveness than other oparameteres would take the fore.

Not understanding how a machine gun effects deployemen, i.e ignorance of its performance is not possible. You have to understand certain basics to be able to deploy it effectievely. Ignorance of the unederlying mechanisms controling a system means not beaing able to even envisage an optimum solution.

Now obviously theis anechdote can be applied to many issues, this illustration is simple to grasp and indicates the issues involved in shapeing credible real world issues within a simulation.

the minute a pertinent design question is asked, everyone turns left following the same old track, the finish line being "People play what they like." As if that is the final word in historical game design.

Because we aren't solving A problem.. we are solving our problem…. and we can't always even agree what the problem os or if it is one at all.🙃🫡

Ushcha
Again this has logical flaws. If you machine gun does not operate correctly (many rules fail dismally on this) then your deployment is unrealistic. Unrealistic basic conditions make for unrealistic decesions.

G6
I'm assuming you mean it doesn't operate properly in terms of game mechanisms?
The flaw in your logic 😉 is that you seem to assume that we need to model the machine guns operation? But as a unit commander where I place a machine gun
When a machine gun is placed I would have an intent behind that. My only though from then on is does it achive that intention. So my focus is on. Where it's placed, are its crew operating it (effectiveness is something I'd already have thought about before) can it keep operating with ammo and crew.
So my decisions are about things most rules don't address or even allow. They are about rolling to hit and cause casualties… things I'd be unlikely to know accurately even if I was the MG crew.
All I need to know is did the mg do the job I wanted it to do and my opponent. Would be thinking about it stopping or not what they wanted to. When the unit hit my the mg goes to ground I don't know whether they have suffered a Mass Cas or they've just gone to ground. I'm nkt going to know until someone tells me or I take time (the key resource as wolfhag says) to find out and even the I'm not likey to get accurate info while they are underfire from tbe mg and even if I know my time would be better off working to get other assets to neutralise the MG

You cannot reasonably simplify rifle and machine guns to have the same ramnge. If you do then the optimum decisions in the game will be at odds with the real world.

Nkt did I say we should… unless of course we are in a situation where max los is within range of the rifles 😉

You have to have credible real world models in order to allow credible in game decisions.

And I didn't say otherwise. The problem is that depending kn the level we are gaming at is having the appropriate .model. in wolfhags rank rules we need and have Ccurste data to model the way the tanks can operate.

But again as a Co CO I don't need to model any more detail of the operation of MG teams than tells me… did it do what I wanted it to do.
I want fidelity only enough resolution to provide that.

I also know that a weapons effectivewmwnrs is more than the sum of its ability to hit targets. In Afghanistan. Allied forces were worried about Taliban HMGs the Taliban weren't afraid so much of allied HMGs but were scared of allied should fired ordinance.
So my accurate model in that case need to reflect that…

And clearly for 50 odd years people can't agree on what a game should be about and as such we will keep discussing that and the best ways to achieve the different goals. 🫡

In over 50 years of historical miniature and board game design, only a handful have stood the test of time. Every year there are new games released for Normandy, WWII, Eastern Front, Normandy, Civil War, etc. Why?

Most games are designed by people with no direct military experience and played by mostly people with no military or combat experience. Even players with military experience will often prefer games non-military players like.

Real training can take months to learn the tactics and operations. Games need to deliver immediate gratification to the most uninformed player to be successful. You must dumb down realism and details.

So the History in Historical wargaming is generated by visuals, social interaction, and discussion? The actual process of playing by the rules for hours is not historical in any fashion?

So much for your efforts with your WWII tack rules. You say the mechanics you worked so long on aren't historical or relate to past history. So much for all your posts to the contrary.

McLaddie, you misunderstood. With low-level engagement, the weapons platform performance and results are pretty historical and can be validated by AARs and training manuals, especially in 1:1 combat and skirmishes.

Better crews execute more actions than poor units. Suppressed units take longer to act than unsuppressed units. I've contacted tank museum personnel for specific questions and borrowed almost nothing from previous games. It works and is intuitive. They have a high degree of historical validation.

However, there are still too many overall design problems that I cannot control or overcome, as well as non-historical aspects of most games.

The biggest factor that makes games unhistorical, including mine, is that all of the units are on the table and you have perfect intel of your enemy. You know exactly the size and weapons loadout. This rarely occurred on the battlefield.

In most war games you can target individual infantry figures and for some reason, they are almost always standing up and making themselves an excellent target <smirky grin>.

I've walked point for an infantry squad through woods, swamps, jungles, and at night. You normally have no idea what you'll run into or what is on the other side of the hill. Fortunately, I grew up on the edge of the Everglades so my fieldcraft and stalking skills were above average.

During one tactical exercise at night, I low-crawled through a unit's perimeter and "shot" their platoon leader, and got away. The unit was totally confused and literally in the dark.

So when I state my game is not historical it's because I compare it to my experiences and what I've observed in the military. Every game is historical to a certain level regarding the figures, terrain, combat, troop movements, rules, etc. In the end, it's personal preferences.

Now some people who have not had the opportunity to experience combat may be narcissistic enough to think their system alone is the only realistic game in the hobby. Dream on!

Rules like activations, command points, command dice, random initiative determination, variations of IGYG, etc are pretty non-historical and I don't rely on them, and neither do real military teams or units.

I think the mechanics of my system are more historically accurate, especially in recreating Opportunity Fire and I didn't make any compromises to make the game fair and balanced which is also non-historical but necessary for an enjoyable game.

I played What a again tonight. It's what I would call a strategy dice game and somewhat like a card game. In a card game, you develop a strategy based on your hand. In WAT you determine your strategy based on your die roll of 6 dice. All of the dice may be used to shoot, move, acquire, aim, and shoot or none of them could be useful and you cannot do anything that turn.

Players may spend a few minutes determining their sequence of actions based on the dice which I think slows down the game and is not historical. However, in one turn, you can move into the LOS of an enemy, acquire it, aim, shoot, and reverse back out of the LOS (Shoot & Scoot or Reverse Slope Defense) to reload. With luck, you may even reload and shoot again. It is the same historical sequence of actions as a real unit would perform. It's more historical than a game where a unit activates and shoots immediately.

There are many action variations and it does allow for player creativity. Unfortunately, as a target, there is nothing you can do or react to unless you have special cards that may prevent it from happening. Getting the random initiative is important.

Based on what I know and played COC I think the designer accomplished his goals. You could argue that the command dice reflects the FOG, unknowns, etc. of war by not allowing the player to do whatever he wants.

For me, the entire gunnery and damage system is too dicey and complicated. One shot can generate numerous "hits" and the target player needs to make a saving throw against each one based on his armor.

I think in some respects historical war games are like war movies – based on a true story and designed to be interesting and entertaining. For maximum enjoyment, you need to "suspend belief". Just don't believe everything you see or think.

Wolfhag

wOLFHAG – While your simulation is fine for what it is, as a gunnery simulation its far too time consuming to be of interest to us all. It covers about 15 min of action, to short a time for folk like me who want to portray longer time periods.
WAT -is not a good example of what can be done. lets face it its a bit faccical that the rotation of a tank turret is not considered as part of the game. Your system of course does. To my knowledge only your system and moine does so. It's not evident why this key issue has not been addressed by other syustemns. This may be entirely as they are ainmed at moddlers who consider models more important than rules so touching a models turret is possibly considered unacceptable, regarless of the cost to the credibility of the system.
Our own IGOUGO type system has an interupt sub system so that the sequence follows some credibility, the target needs to be observed on both siddes. So in our system an element coming into view will aford a watching enemy to fire first shot regarless, like the real world. It can be done but for some reason many games to not bother.

As to no real model of the world. I solved many real world problems using systems that are not real world. Time marching anaysis is not a direct representation of the real world but it still get's the right answers. In part that is about getting a time step inline with both the computing accuracy and the available computing capacity. Your sytstem is excellent but not suitable for modelling what happens to two infantry copmpanies fighting each other. It is in reality more in the style of an RPG. Nothing wrong with that but a reasonable result can be achieved with thought by an IGOUGO system integrated in to a system wide model. Some die rolling is inevitable, as an example even the real world data on armour penetration is provaided as statistics so it's effect uinevitable will require die rolls. Similarly if you need sopme level of asynchronous behaviour then a die is an easy way to do this. It can "shade" the time taken to complete an action, it can by varying the proability result in diffrent delays depending on circumstances.

Accuracy and history are not fixed. Most rules are games poked in to a vaguely historical shaped box.

As wolfhag says RL doesn't happen on a table so we are gaming. These days we have more ways to wargame than when the op was written and they can create opertunities for convergent discovery. I discovered what I found out was a tactic of hitting an enemy tank with a smoke ground to blind it before hitting it with at rounds by chance in an l online ww2 game called enlisted. It's a good way to experience ground los etc I've found and used rl tactics with mortars. BUT it's not a realistic game.

As you say Wolfhag. TT games can have realistic data behind them and hitroical interpretation to achieve a goal. Which for me is to experience something more than just a game. I'm not fused if I don't see figures on the table untill they are seen, though I like good figures, I can sperate the pleasure of that from the short time they maybe on the table.

While your simulation is fine for what it is, as a gunnery simulation its far too time-consuming to be of interest to us all. It covers about 15 min of action, to short a time for folk like me who want to portray longer time periods.

Yes, it's a 1:1 skirmish-level game. I make no apologies. The game does what I want. Yours does what you want, which is all that counts. There is no issue to agree or disagree on as there are no established standards or rules for game design.

In Otto Carius's book, "Tigers in the Mud" he stated that in combat (at his level) seconds count. I agree with Otto. If he were a General he's probably say days, not seconds, count. It depends on the level and unit size.

How much game time (not real human time) a game takes is entirely dependent on how the players maneuver and their tactics. When there is no mutual LOS to react to players plot their movement and then we simultaneously move in 10-second increments until a new mutual LOS is created and then we go back to the second-by-second turns. This is generally how a meeting engagement starts with both sides being out of sight at the start of the game.

In a defensive game, the defender will normally have his units concealed and not moving. He'll let the attackers move into range, which may take a few minutes of game time and real-time. When he opens fire we go back to the second-to-second gameplay. The system is always moving to the next unit action to execute without traditional rules so it moves much quicker.

Games with 20 units and 3-5 players per side take from 2-4 hours of real time to complete so it's not much different than other games. WAT took 2.5 hours with four players and two tanks each but we were new to the system.

The OODA Loop timing determines how long it will take a gun to shoot. However, you can use any gunnery hit chance, hit location, and damage system you like. You don't have to use mine. You can also use any hit location, armor, and damage system too.

I have a "gun simulation" that allows the player to put the crosshairs over a scaled image of a tank (just as a gunner would) and determine the direction and dispersion distance with a die roll of one D20 and two D10. The results show the armor at that location, ricochet chance (if any), and the system hit (ammo, fuel, or engine) if penetrated. Pretty much like a tank video game.

Timing is crucial to any activity so timing can be used for any action. It's just a matter of determining the increment of timing. For ACW I use one-minute timing for movement because simultaneous movement at 60 yards/minute for 2 mph movement works well with musket ROF which is about one minute.

I've also experimented with man-man, air-air combat, and naval warfare using seconds for the OODA Loop Timing system.

Your system is excellent but not suitable for modeling what happens to two infantry companies fighting each other. It is in reality more in the style of an RPG. Nothing wrong with that but a reasonable result can be achieved with thought by an IGOUGO system integrated in to a system wide model.

My experience was in a Marine Rifle Company. I've modeled the infantry system based on my experience and the tactics from the manuals. In some ways, the infantry system is simpler and faster than the tank version and uses the same system for small arms fire and hand-held anti-tank weapons

We've played two infantry companies against each other. It's much simpler than most games because I use a method to determine simultaneous small arms fire results every 5 or 10 turns/seconds. The results are based on a British War Office report. If the target is in good cover, according to a British War Office Report their causalities would be 1-5% per minute if fired at by a British Bren Gun section.

Both sides roll one D20. On the Small Arms Fire results chart, you index the # firing and the % chance of a causality to determine the # of causalities. No buckets of dice. Each "hit" the defender rolls a D6 for his cover. If he passes, he's suppressed and can attempt to rally later, if not he's a causality.

I've found that the people who have the hardest wrapping their heads around something they do naturally dozens of times a day (OODA Loop) are other game designers and gamers over 40 years old. To play my system, you have to forget about almost everything from other systems you've played. That can be tough.

When I explain the game to experienced first-time players I'll say, "Think and do exactly what a real tank commander and crew would do" and I normally get blank stares. Most IGYG games are easy because they tell the player when and what he can do with a minimum of thinking.

I'll admit most of my design efforts were to simplify the system as much as possible while retaining the historical detail.

Here are two of my playtesters:

German side

Russian side. The circular colored play aid is for determining angles for situational awareness and hit location. The square one in front of him is the T-34/76 customized data card. It has the timing values for 1st shot and reloading (determined by a D6 roll), gun chart (hit# and penetration), hit location/armor, max speed over terrain types, and any other special equipment or performance.

The one on the left is 16 and has never played a war game before (controlled 4x Tiger I). The one on the right is 14 with a slight learning disability but has played tank video games (controlled 12x T-34/76).

For about 45 minutes they needed help navigating the data card but it is laid out in the steps you need to follow. They caught on to the OODA Loop concept of immediately issuing your next move or shoot order using the data card. There are no other charts to use.

The simplest version of the game is the Russian tanks fire every 8 turns/seconds, German tanks every 6 seconds, and anti-tank guns every 4 seconds. Roll a D6 to determine how long, in addition, it will take to engage a new target (spotting, traversing the turret, etc is abstracted in this version). The timing is based loosely on historic rates of fire.

I'll forgive you for coming to the wrong conclusion on the game since you've never played it or read the rules. I'll go out on a limb here and say you are smarter than a 14-year-old. I'm confident you can handle it, UshCha. <grin>

Wolfhag