"How many times a year?" Topic

No clean you mind! I mean wargames a year using the same rules. I was fascinated to read on contributor considered once a year was not untypical. Clearly rules designed to be played once a year will be massively different to ones designed to be played every week for a decade or more. Where do you stand on this scale?

Figure 6-12 games of the same rules in any given year. Once it would have been more like 40 games a year, and yes, of course the rules were very different.

At home still on same rules for 43years,do keep trying different rules at conventions

Use the same rules every week at one game. Others we try different things.

Go through period stages –

Some rules are once a year – others more frequently

6-12. Some months no games, other months several.

2-3 dozen, if all the planets align:

• A consistent interest group willing/able to meet regularly
  
• A work schedule and location that accommodates regular and frequent hobby times
  
• A list of other hobbies which either don't intrude or can be arranged around/between the gaming sessions

Right now I'm far from my gaming groups, working too much, and finding very little time for hobbies anyway, so I'm lucky to get a dozen games a year, and nearly every game is something we haven't played in 1-20 years.

- Ix

Depends – for Black Powder probably six – eight games BUT that is because we are using them for a SYW campaign – for other sets varies – TSAFT probably three times a year, Rapid Fire also three times, other sets once a year (with the lads at our monthly game day)

I play SAGA about 30 times this year. Xenos Rampant around 12.

6 to 8 would be a reasonable guess.

A slightly different take on this.
It is not at all unreasonable for some players to not be familiar with the rules. At the beginning of the ACW, NOBODY knew the rules. Everyone assumed that this War would be just like the last War. In other words, the Mexican War. Which was quasi Napoleonic.
Yet many of the political appointees to Colonel rank or higher did not fight in Mexico. They were politicians, and thus the smartest guy in the room. If they were diligent…. If they were diligent, they studied Napoleon. Yet again, they were smarter. Just ask them. 🙄
Basically, at each new War, most had to forget what they knew, and, if they survived, learn something new. Good luck with that.

Now, let's look at the current Ultramodern War in Ukraine. It appears that Stalin, excuse me, Putin is fighting 1942, with some bells and whistles. Ukraine is fighting 2022-2024. They have read the V3 of the rules.
Question. Will those lessons work in 2025-6? 🤔

My point, and I do have one, is that unfamiliarity with the rules is actually quite realistic.

I game every week, sometimes twice a week. We like to mix things up and rarely play the same thing twice in a row, however for the games I run I've standardised somewhat. In the last 12 months I've played at least a dozen games of my Napoleonic rules, and perhaps a score of my WW2 rules, so they are fairly well tested. I've been playtesting some Ancients rules and they are up to 14 games now. It is commercial rules which get less of a lookin, maybe a few times a year each?

John, when playing an historical boardgame I consider the first game to be the 'real' one, for the reasons you've suggested. Later replays – with a proper understanding of the rules and the situation – are very much about playing against the game.

To answer the question, I've played ten games in the past 12 months of one set of rules. It was our show game so we needed to have it sorted. Maybe 6 of another ruleset; and a few games each of an assortment of figure and boardgames.

John I absolutely disagree, but of course I would. The basics of warfare are troop level tactics and in modern war combined operations these have been true for many wars including the current set. In ukraine these are still key to this War. There are diffrences like the use of drones that are new. The rules of wargame are not such things they are the basics of the systems to implement the world. They allow an approximation of an armoured vehicle, exactly its performance can be selected by a capable pkayer. Knowing the rules does not let you win. We play a guy who knows real world tactics but not the rules and he win far too often than we would like and we wrote the rules! However he needs us to implement the rules. This is a rare occation where it is not a drag on the game as he knows what to do. Us lessar mortals need to have the rules as second nature so we can concentrate on the tactics. What you describe is like sending a man in that does not know what a rifle is and expecting him to behave adequately. That may be an a aceptable solution for a failed state like Ruszia but does not model well a competent military power like the UK. Hence your assumption in myy oppinion is far from valid.

I won't say we never repeat a scenario some trainees get to play a scenario that is some 20 years old, but they are new to them and that is what counts. However as seasoned players where would the interest in repeating scenarios?

I play every week. If we like a set of rules they might get half a dozen plays. Then I'd rather move to a different period or set of rules. Since I have figures for maybe 20 periods, and often multiple rules for each period, it might be years before a set of figures or rules see the table again. So we prefer rules you can pick up quickly after not playing them for 10 years

Sadly, my wargames are limited to a couple a year, if I am lucky. My RPG sessions run every 3-6 weeks.

Would I like to play my chosen miniatures wargames more frequently? YES! The limiting factor is availability of players, and how often they would join me for my games.

My two genres are Fantasy mass battles games, and 54mm Army Men games which are ahistorical, entirely made up, no ongoing armies/nations, just battle for the sake of battle. My miniatures gaming friends enjoy them, but only a few times a year… I need to find more gamer friends who are enthusiastically excited for my two chosen genres. <SIGH…> Cheers!

What you describe is like sending a man in that does not know what a rifle is and expecting him to behave adequately.

No. It is not like that in the slightest. I'm talking about an inexperienced officer, or an army working with obsolete tactics.
I'm always amused by "gamers" who think they're running "simulations". Give me a break. It's toys on a table top. Period.
What I'm saying is that being unfamiliar with the rules is not unrealistic. Check out the News about North Korean "soldiers" who were in a firefight and panicked, shooting in all directions, killing several Russian "allies". One Russian soldier was so unnerved by that incident that he immediately defected. Do your rules simulate that?

I see rules as to how to cover driving a car in the rules. Clearly we could use a radio controlled car but we would need a seat and the pedals a screen to give a FPV, a bit much certainly in my man cave and that is just one vehicle! So I need an approximation. The rules are that approximation. That has nothing directly to do with the military it's just a crude simulation. Similarly the table is a map to some sort of scale. If the players are not immediately understanding of thst scale they will struggle to comprehend the situation being represented. To be honest I can struggle when changing from 1/72 models to 1/144 models with associated ground scale change even though the terrain representation is the same stuff scaled down in many cases.

To analyse complex terrain with an interesting and challenging scenario for sombody who has not played the rules is a bit of an ask.

This has noting to do with the military prowess of the antagonits its just world to simulated world issues. It has nothing to do with the military mind or black of it.

Clearly you play so differently to us there is little common ground.

You lack of understanding of simulation means you do just play with toys, if that is all you feel you want thats fine.
However your lack of understanding also means you cannot criticise us for simulation, you cannot understand it if all you do is play with toys. it's your choice to make unsubstantiated comments not a requiremnt of others to consider it a sound or rational judgemnt.

You lack of understanding of simulation means you do just play with toys, if that is all you feel you want thats fine.

The Art of Condescension is strong with this one.
Look, Pal. I suffered through no end of "simulations" from SPI and other similar games Back in the Day. So please do not accuse me of "lack of understanding of simulation", thank you very much.
I understand it completely, and I think it's an absolute waste of time. More times than not, it means getting lost in meaningless details that obscure the actual play.
I'm not going to go into any detail regarding which commercial rules I found preposterous.
So, go ahead and accuse me of playing with toy soldiers. I freely accept that canard. But so do you, much more grimly than I do. 😱
If you think that makes our playing styles incompatible, good. I doubt very much that you would enjoy my Wyoming Massacre game, where one's political life after the end of the war depends on how your figure behaves in the game. Why, we have had golf courses named after some of the players. One player was overjoyed that he got killed, because he went out heroically!

I'm a big Piquet fan so, in that multi-period genre, maybe 25-35 gaming session a year. Other rules combined, another 10.

Dexter Ward, great name. Just listening to that series from the start again today. Gotta love the Lovecraft series. See BBC sounds.

he Art of Condescension is strong with this one.
Look, Pal. I suffered through no end of "simulations" from SPI and other similar games Back in the Day. So please do not accuse me of "lack of understanding of simulation", thank you very much.
I understand it completely, and I think it's an absolute waste of time. More times than not, it means getting lost in meaningless details that obscure the actual play.
I'm not going to go into any detail regarding which commercial rules I found preposterous.
So, go ahead and accuse me of playing with toy soldiers. I freely accept that canard. But so do you, much more grimly than I do. 😱
If you think that makes our playing styles incompatible, good. I doubt very much that you would enjoy my Wyoming Massacre game, where one's political life after the end of the war depends on how your figure behaves in the game. Why, we have had golf courses named after some of the players. One player was overjoyed that he got killed, because he went out heroically!

Jeez, we agree on something.

There's a book about military wargames (70s, pre-computer assisted) played by the military, and anyone who thinks they are simulating warfare using a commercial set of rules is deluding themselves. Think a rule book in three thick A4 volumes which requires a team of umpires to interpret and where a divisional game, representing 24 hours, is played by two teams of staff officers, for 8 hours a day over 2 to 4 weeks, to get a result. That's simulation!

It's a game we do for fun, it seems. Dress it up all you want – unless you are playing proper military wargames – we are all playing with toy soldiers!

I thought we'd killed off the "if you're enjoying wargaming and enjoy the rules it isn't wargaming" crowd at the end of the 1970s along with the simulate everything from the bottom up people…

Top down design produces better and more enjoyable game, in my opinion. I like pushing toys around a table and have been known to push toys around a lawn and fire matchsticks at them. That is no more or less "realistic" than anything else.

UsCha – if you are using models on a tabletop, it isn't a simulation, no matter what you may think. It's a wargame.
If you want a simulation, at the very least you should be using a Kreigspiel style double blind system with an umpire.

Dexter Ward
If you are laying out a defense on a table then its a wargame. Military forces use maps and sand table to plan and track potential action/Battles. So clearly your understanding of simulation is lacking. My suggestion keep playing with the toys and make do with not understanding simulation.

So clearly your understanding of simulation is lacking.

I have been strongly suggested to refrain from biting retorts. So all I shall say here is that the above quote is totally to be expected.

if you are using models on a tabletop, it isn't a simulation, no matter what you may think.

You who? Apparently the NATO Modling and Simulation Center of Excellence; US: National Defense Univeristy, Army War College, Naval War College, Joint Forces Staff College, Serivce Acadamies, OSD Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office, Center for Strategic International Studies, Center for Naval Analyses, Institue for Defense Analysis …. arrrgh … I'm getting typer's carmp!

Also, those are the only ones I've worked with where off the top of my head I know their definition of "simulation" is along the lines of "a model executed over time". Which is what a TTWG absolutely is.

(I don't agree with that and discuss with those orgs on a regular basis that the definition is "a model executed dynamically", that is, not necessarily over time. The core dynamic driver is almost always time, but that's no reason to superimpose your context on the general definition of a term.
A lot of their SME agree, but it is a PITA to fight institutional intertia in many cases.)

I find it a little disheartening that people use the large, complex, expensive military wargames run by professional militaries and professional military think tanks as their example of "simulation", but don't use those organizations' definition of the term. This logical fallacy is colloquially called "cherry picking".

So clearly your understanding of simulation is lacking.

So is yours too, apparently, according to the Experts and Professionals cited by etotheipi above.
Way back in the mists of time, in the previous century, I saw Diplomacy described as a "simulation" by professional diplomats, of all people. (At that same time Sister Mary Battleaxe would have challenged me to diagram the previous sentence. Obviously I never learned.)
I have seen Risk described as a "simulation".

If you wish to claim that agonizing over whether your shock absorbers should have been replaced a month ago makes your game superior to The Sword and the Flame, be my guest. Differences of opinion and quality are the bones of this Hobby. I would disagree.
40 pages of rules and a 4 page QRS does not make a superior game. Nor does it make it a superior "simulation". It just makes it longer to play.

In a somewhat contemporary thread here, I asked for suggestions for fighting Little Round Top, implying that the players' maneuver element was a single regiment. One might argue that I am demanding a "higher degree of simulation" but I'm not. Certainly I would not expect to play Antietam with those rules. Antietam would require simpler rules. Both games could be considered "simulations", I suppose. But complexity doth not enhance simulation.

The problem with tabletop wargames is that both sides have far too much information, and command and control is almost never well modelled. Both of those issues are solved by a Kriegspiel style double blind game with an umpire. Many tabletop games concentrate on technical details and ignore the important stuff. If your rules have detailed hit and penetration tables and lots of complexity, but allow a commander perfect knowledge of where his troops are, and their state, never mind the enemy's, then they are not a simulation of battle.
UshCha, rather than throwing insults around, how about actually making an argument?

A double blind game gives you percieved truth of Red, but perfect knowledge of Blue. You have to have a third table with the Ground Truth from which the umpire generates and applies percieved truth for both players to physically implement both fog and friction of war with respect to position and unit state.

This is extremely expenive, slow, and prone to errors for a TTWG. It's actually pretty easy to do digitally, and you can have as many different truths (MyFor and three subordinate commanders, say) as you can parameterize out, for very marginal incremental cost.

But if I have a single percieved truth (unrealistic), the table, and actions are affected by parameters of both Blue and Red units, you have the same effect as if each individual unit has their own perceived truth of Blue and Red. F'r'ex, if I roll "to hit" my Blue parameterization creates a delta between the board and m outcome (informatino friction of war) and the red parameterization creates a delta between the board and the effect (information fog of war).

It's simpler, cheaper, faster, and less prone to errors than three boards and an ump. You should only employ an umpire if you need them to apply substanive judgement in their actions, not just apply a mechanical transformations to data.

But complexity doth not enhance simulation.

Absolutely. The same sources that I cited above, and many more, use the "Einstein Principle" – Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.

They start with top-down design based on what is important for the wargame – what dynamics are to be demonstrated, which derives from what are you doing to do with the outcome of the sim. That also derives the fidelty of the dynamics. Then you pick the representaiton.

That's how you end up with some very simple simulations in those venues.

Dexter Ward – Clearly you play different games to me. Inevitably most of both side in our games are not on table but their positions mapped, easy on a hex based terrain. I play with reasonable players who only place there minis when detected and when they move out of sight to relocate they are removed from the table.

Now we do make some concessions when teaching new players as this can cause analysis paralysis so we start with all pieces of both sides on while they get the hang od the besic mechanics. Then we move onto real and dummy markers. Some folk stay at that point as they decide it is their limit, again the hiding of information is already working to test the players abilities.

As for insults I can't do such things I merely paraphrase others who of course would not think of being insulting.

I'm always amused by "gamers" who think they're running "simulations". Give me a break. It's toys on a table top. Period.

and However it does indicate that the system is reasonabbly effective. No I appreciate some folk are so precious about their minis that taking them off the table or not putting them on is not acceptable for them. Like you say nothing wrong with playing with just "toys"

Dexter Ward – Clearly you play different games to me. Inevitably most of both side in our games are not on table but their positions mapped, easy on a hex based terrain. I play with reasonable players who only place there minis when detected and when they move out of sight to relocate they are removed from the table.

Now we do make some concessions when teaching new players as this can cause analysis paralysis so we start with all pieces of both sides on while they get the hang od the besic mechanics. Then we move onto real and dummy markers. Some folk stay at that point as they decide it is their limit, again the hiding of information is already working to test the players abilities. However it does indicate that the system is reasonably effective at hiding information.

Now I appreciate some folk are so precious about their minis that taking them off the table or not putting them on is not acceptable for them. Like you say nothing wrong with playing with just "toys"

As for insults I would do such things I merely paraphrase others who of course would not think of being insulting so my comments could not be insulting merely a reflection of others comments (see quote below).

I'm always amused by "gamers" who think they're running "simulations". Give me a break. It's toys on a table top. Period.

Instead of torturing the English language, why don't you simply define "simulation"?
Then we will have something to either disagree or agree with.
We have a few definitions from other people, but none from you.

Why don't you read other peoples' posts before you comment on what they do or don't post?

Also, those are the only ones I've worked with where off the top of my head I know their definition of "simulation" is along the lines of "a model executed over time". Which is what a TTWG absolutely is.

(I don't agree with that and discuss with those orgs on a regular basis that the definition is "a model executed dynamically", that is, not necessarily over time. The core dynamic driver is almost always time, but that's no reason to superimpose your context on the general definition of a term.
A lot of their SME agree, but it is a PITA to fight institutional intertia in many cases.)

I gave the definition from military professional organizations and mine.

Apparently you reading skills are better than mine. Please quaote the "few definitions" of sinmulation from this thread. I only see examples and counterexamples.

I was addressing the post right above mine. I'm agreeing with you.
I am challenging HIM for what he considers a "simulation".
As for the remark about "torturing the English language", it was obviously not directed at you.

Actually, it was explicitly directed at "you". You gave no inidcation of at whom of the people you have responsed to in this thread, you were direccting the comment.

Apologies.

BTW, good luck with your original intent.

etotheipi's definition 10 Nov 2024 3:13 a.m. PST is the same as mine so I see no reason to repeat it.

OFM Perhaps you could define why you think other folks games cannot be simulations.

I am happy to recognize that some rules by some writers have no intention of being simulation's and that is perfectly acceptable, but that is not by definition all sets of rules.

Thanks by the way the answers on times a year a rule set was played by the respondents.

I was was somewhat of a surprised by the very low numbers in some cases, no wonder rule sets vary so widely.

OFM Perhaps you could define why you think other folks games cannot be simulations.

Which I never said. 🤷
I'm asking you for your definition.

What I *DID* say was that very simple games like Risk and Diplomacy have been called "simulations".
I have a Spidey Sense that you would disagree. 🤔
So, what I would like to see is YOUR definition, which goes beyond "What he said", and why your game matches that definition.i It would also be nice to see why you are so adamant about why what others play does not match up to yours.
Tell me exactly why a game like The Sword and the Flame is unworthy. I'm curious to know why.

Never played Sword and the Flame, which history is it based on?

Only do WW2/Moderm. I am awrare some of those have massive problems.

Rapid fire has no consistent ground scale the ranges are set non linearly that distorts time and ppace in a way that is not really possible to unravel. It's the reason vehicles that could and should be 10 miles away to avoid counterbattery fire are on table 2 tank gun ranges away. And why 3 tanks do not take up the correct space, even for the range distotrion/time space ditortion. I can go on but that seems enough.

You've mentioned things that stop a game being a simulation, but you still haven't defined what you mean by a simulation.

Why do you think your rules are a simulation? What exactly do your rules simulate? Movement? Firepower? Fog of War? Command and Control? Morale? Logistics? How do they simulate those things, and why do you think those mechanisms give an accurate simulation?