"What makes a set of wargaming rules a “simulation”?" Topic

There seems to be a whole lot of bickering going on around here about this.
How would you define a "simulation"? More to the point, why should the rules you play be considered a simulation?

Let's try to avoid, please, why this makes anything superior or inferior.

I'm not sure it's a binary question. I think rules can be more or less a simulation (and I'm not saying which end of the spectrum is better). But to look at a simulation, I think you need to consider several things:

1). What is being simulated? Ballistic performance, man's performance under stress, leadership decision making, etc. A simulation needs to have clear definition of intent

2) Handling of information. A simulation should control the information available to the participants to some extent

3) Results connected to inputs. If a decision is made by a participant, are the results that follow connected to the decision in a reasonable and transparent way.

4) Clear level of involvement of the participants. For are purposes, are they privates, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, colonels, or generals?

These are the things I look for in a game to judge its place in the simulation spectrum.

Empire/R&E are what I consider simulations

This hobby tends to assume "simulation" = highly complex, with "beer and pretzels" at the opposite end. This is really just hobby speak. Often, simulation means bottom up design – if it's in the battle it has to be in the game.

I played a game in business school. It was a simulation of a supply chain. It consisted of handing index cards from one person to another. Could not have been more simple, but it was a terrific simulation of how flows get congested. In this case we were only simulating traffic flow, not pricing, ,arket shares, etc.

If you always know where your troops are and they always do what you want them to….it's a game…

Dave

Nothing we do is a true or accurate simulation. We play games of varying degrees of complexity. And complexity does not automatically equal simulation, although it *may* lead us to more realistic results. As an old boss used to say, an upgrade does not mean an improvement.

intended outcomes. Simulations are training/evaluation tools. Games are, well, games, intended to pass time and have fun. Not saying simulations are not fun or that games can be used for training. More stated purpose of the design

A simulation is something that impresses with data, charts and clever commentary but is not fun to play.

Playing alternative Napoleonic rules at conventions my new designation that Fast and easy definitely makes that not a simulation.
I don't have to every game, but at home with time to spare I am looking for the best set of rules to have a simulation.

If a set of rules is a "simulation" it immediately goes on the bring and buy if it comes across my desk.

martin

The important thing is to decide what you want to simulate, because you sure can't simulate everything. Do you go for a bottom up nuts and bolts approach like Tractics or Advanced Squad Leader? If so, you end up missing out command and control and fog of war. Or do you concentrate on command and its problems like IABSM or Chain of Command? It helps if the designer sets out their intention; both because the gamer knows what to expect, and also because it forestalls criticism of things the designer chooses not to simulate.
Some simulations are very enjoyable, some are an unplayable mess. The second category are the ones where the designer did not decide what to simulate.

I try to avoid use of the S word myself: there's too much associated emotion. But I tend to think of a spectrum. At one end there's the pure game. It could be Candyland, or it could be Chess. The important thing is that it's not trying to represent anything--just being the most fun for its intended players. At the other end--even though the word "game" is still frequently used--the goal is to get as close as you can to a real-life decision-making process. Think "RED FLAG" dogfights--or flight simulators, and the word is used for a reason.

Historical and near-future games are probably a little closer to the simulation end, but I think most of us have heard someone say something along the lines of "real orcs wouldn't do that!" which suggests a simulation of--something. And outside of a very small percentage, we're not being paid to wargame. So presumably if it wasn't fun, we'd stop. [For the record, I've taken part in a variety of government-perpetrated games of the "simulation" sort. I'd do analysis again for the sheer joy of it, but getting me back into those games would require serious taxpayer money.]

Also worth considering that few of us play every period. We avoid some because regardless of the rules, they're just no fun. And sometimes we avoid periods because there just isn't enough information to simulate battles properly. I've done both myself.

So I think we're all on the spectrum, and somewhere around the middle of it. But where exactly may not be the same for any of us from one day to the next.

Rich Bliss noted, "I'm not sure it's a binary question", and I would go further and say that it is clearly not a binary question, but rather, as Robert Piepenbrink said, a spectrum. There is another spectrum of simple to complex, and you could set those as X and Y axes and post a dot for each game.

Thus Extra Crispy's business school game would be very low on the complexity axis and very high on the simulation axis. Advanced Squad Leader would be high on both axes. Checkers would be low on both. I can't think of a high-complexity low-simulation game, but I'm sure you'll be able to.

(Accuracy would be a third axis, I suppose, and we could consider others.)

Anyway, the original question would be re-framed as "what pushes a game higher on the simulation axis?"

For me, the more the players have to make decisions similar to those that the people in the field have to make, the higher up the simulation axis the game is.

Having played a lot of SPI's Air War, Harpoon 4, GMT's East Front series, etc., I think it comes down to the gamers in your group and what they like. Some gamers like to see an aircraft use its sensors to lock onto another aircraft, fire a missile, track the missile's movement, go through the defensive maneuvers/decoys, then roll for a hit and damage. Others just like to roll a D10 and on a 7+ shoot the other jet down! Most of the games I would put into the simulation category aren't exactly a lot of fun, but gamers play them for various reasons, i.e., they want to learn about modern combat, aren't satisfied with other games on the topic, etc. As we get older games seem to turn more into getting it over in 3-4 hours while having fun with little rules overhead.

What makes a set of wargaming rules a "simulation"?

Nothing.

A simulation is simply a model executed dynamically, usually over time. Rules are not a simulation, they are models. A wargame is a simulation. It executes the model contained in the rules.

As indicated above, the real question is "What is your referent?", that is what are the dynamics that you want to simulate? The answer to this will include what dynamics you want, how they map to inputs and outputs, and the granulairty of the model you need to represent the referent.

The meta-game elements of the wargame also factor into the simulation, where those elements represent particpant-particpant interactions.

Advertising. Reviews. Opinions. Wargamers who smell like they've been "out bush" ("in the field" in Yanklish) for six weeks or more.

I have lost interest in these questions. Is cereal soup? Is a Madeline a cookie? Is ___ a facist?

The proper thing to do is come up with a definition, possibly from the dictionary, and then see if it fits. Done. But we care a lot more today about how words make us feel than what they mean, so every time some raises the question of whether a hot dog is a sandwich we are off to the races.

If you were making a simulation you would run it a few times with known inputs to see if it produced the proper outputs. You would gauge its accuracy. You would do this systematically. We often offer opinions about this, but we are not systematic about it. Many, many very popular games are terrible simulations. From all this I conclude that while there may be a simulative aspect to war-games, it's not the important part.

What we want from the game is for it to *evoke* the situation being portrayed. This is more of a feeling, an aesthetic function. That's what representative games are really about. If a game succeeds in evoking it matters little if it accurately simulates.

Professional military war-games are different, but they are training tools, not games. While the expression may be the same (rules, map, pieces) the intent is different. They're still not simulations, but exercises.

I'm deliberately not engaging the original question, and I appropriately apologize for that.

What etotheipi said. I used to be an economist for my sins.

I would expect the output from the model based on the inputs to to bear some relation to historical outcomes. The model may be simple or complicated, it doesn't really matter as long as the outputs are plausible.

A model of Waterloo, based on Napoleons assessment, is that the French have a 60% chance of winning. Throw a D10 a few times and you have simulated Waterloo. Or you could dress up tens of thousands of re-enactors and have them manouvre over the ground, or paint ten or a hundred or a thousand toy soldiers and do much the same thing. They are all models, some may produce more plausible results than others.

Personally, I am just happy for my games to look OK and generate a historically plausible narrative. As Andrew says, it is an aesthetic function.

Rules should be based upon real life. They are recreations or models of real life parameters. One example is command and control: NOT a radius! C&C process consists of 5 elements:
Commanding Elements
Commanded Elements
Downward flow of communications
Upward flow of communications
Friction at all levels stated above.

Morale: What sane, rational person wants to be in a situation that can get you killed? The effectiveness of a unit is based upon the training and experience of the men; Training and experience of the unit's leadership and more importantly- How long have these men been under the current leadership? How well are the leaders directing the men that keeps them functioning as a unit?

Also, no two men are the same yet units are made up of men. Therefore, why do most games rate units (green, veteran, elite, etc) the same? All green (for example) have the same ratings. The value sets used are flawed and therefore are more prone to give linear results.

The weapons systems are reliant upon the knowledge, skills and experience of the trigger puller. The ability to penetrate the armor of a tank is irreverent if the gunner doesn't hit it! I have always claimed that the most common element in any period of warfare has always been man. A quick check of ammunition expended verses casualties will quickly make clear that man is mostly poor shooters.

There are more factors that can be discussed but to put it in other words, the value sets used in most games have created (invented?) value sets not based upon real world factors/situations. I therefore question any rules set that claims to be realistic. (Including mine.)

If blanks aren't being fired and flash-bangs aren't being set off while playing, it's not a simulation… ;-)

I hear in this thread "I would not do that unless you paid me" about jhobbies. That may be true but its not universal. We in the UK have folk who drive steam trains for free with all the resposibilities of a paid driver with resposibilities for hundreds of folks lives, so being a hard and difficult, Being resposible and serious task does not automaticaly rule it out as a hobby. Yes simulations require that horrid word for some THINKING and PLANNING but that is not a universal definition of boreing.

I find that "boreing dire and no fun" seem to be used in the description of simulations far more than games in this thread. I have played Games to be honest FAR more boreing and tedious than simulations, so again that is not a useful general definition its an eye of the beholder thing, personal choice.

Simarly I don't want to die when I lose a game and my figure is rendered combat inefective, that might be "realistic" in some sence, however that is not a credible simulation, so again it says more about the lack of understanding of some folk about the basic aims of simulation.

One "abstract" definition of simulation may be that it takes time and a relatively large number of simulation events (games) for the understanding can be gained. From personal experience it takes a lot of games, win or lose for me to undetsrtans how to "read" an urban area, I am getting better. But a guy who learnt it for a living takes only seconds to do so reliably and consistantly. Hence if you play a "game" once a year in many (but not all cases, see above) you may not learn much so simulation may not be even a useful definition whatsoever in your approach to the hobby. That not being negative its being realistic as the players aims are wildly different to mine so simulation may not even be a credible aim for their form of entertainment.

I do see simulation as being one way to derive entertainment by learning about a chosen period and say its tactics and how and what decisions need to be made. At the outset the obvious decsions are not always the correct ones. Simulations help you make better decisions in the fulture and expand your understanding of the realk world, which is NEVER boreing to me.

Personally these threads to me all too soon disoilve into discussions, not always in my understanding credibly, into the "imponderables like morale. I see folk un-motivated in the news badly lead but still go forward into hell every day knowing that most of them die. But they still more or less do what they are told. Many "morale" rules would have then breaking before they even go there on a "6".

Their is much "science" in warfare as well as art and the former is a credible target for simulation as are some aspects of the "art" of war.

In Saga (my knowledge is from the first edition), if a unit runs, it gets a tired marker (dont know the exact name). If that unit fights, the opponent can use the tired marker to give you something negative. So fighting makes exhausted units become fresh again.

That is obviously a gamey rule, because it doesnt simulate anything happening in a real fight. Saga may be a good game and even fun, but in that central rule it is no simulation.

The Saga rule you cite is more realistic than you might think. Units which activate more than once, or which have been in melee, get fatigue markers. A unit with 3 fatigue is exhausted, cannot charge and is at a disadvantage in melee. Units can rest to recover fatigue. Fatigue can also be used to reduce movement or cancel activations. Fatigue can be 'spent' by the opponent in melee to improve their own armour, or reduce the opponent's, nicely simulating a tired unit.
But by doing that you remove the fatigue; sometimes it is better to leave it; makes for a good decision point. A good example of design for effect rather than trying to model the detail of combat.

What makes a set of wargaming rules a #simulation#

Nothing. The simulation word/concept/idea is a marketing left-over from the 1970s and 1980s boardgames market.

Some of the firms at the time did US DOD contract work and were exposed to proper full-strength military simulation terminology.

It was used as a bit of chrome to make their boardgames rules look good.

This formular fits the usual comments viz games versus simulations:

- Mine miniatures gaming is a high-brow simulation,
- Your miniatures gaming is an amusing exercise,
- Their miniatures gaming is only a frivolous game.

I used to subscribe to Strategy and Tactics magazine. It came in a plain Manila envelope from "Simulations Publications". My father worked in the Post Office, and his co-workers wondered about this monthly package from "Stimulations Publications". They thought it was Playboy or Penthouse. 🤷
"Dear Penthouse Forum. My girlfriend thinks I should let her roll a 6 every time she needs it. She's really cute, though, but I dislike cheating. What should I do?"

Anyway…
The absolute worst example of a "Simulation", among many worthy contenders, was an abomination allegedly simulating American football. The playing field was only 20 yards long. Each player/counter was moved separately. A complete turn could take ten minutes to resolve. There were no passing plays. Only running plays.
The Designer Notes claimed that real high school and college coaches found it invaluable as a teaching tool. Yep.
It was obviously designed by someone who had never either played or watched a single game.
Yet, it was a "simulation". Sure, buddy.
It's called "Scrimmage", so caveat emptor.

I stayed away from Campaign for North Africa. I have a friend who bought it to study it, but never played it.
Sheldon, Leonard, Howard and Raj attempted to play it, though. 🙄 Naturally, Sheldon was in charge.
Somehow, I imagine every game touted here as being a true "simulation" being played by the BBT crew.

SPI's Scrimmage! That brings back some memories, albeit bad ones! About 10 issues later there was Sixth Fleet, where the designer applied the Napoleon's Battles system to modern combat! You literally had to force ships and aircraft to retreat into a zone of control to destroy them. Just shows that you need to be careful about what designers are trying to simulate.

I think the staff were high for quite a few of the games they called "simulations". 🙄

I agree I want to have fun, everything is secondary. I played in a couple of historicons with a particular GM and a particular rule set, the GM call the rules B&P (but there not his rules) The 3 times I've played the out comes were the same as the original battles including the way they were actually won in real life.

Many wargames are described as fun, they most certainly are not in many cases for me. Probably more fake descriptions in that direction than the lie about being a simulation. Just because it says its something does not mean it is. That goes for all rules including mine "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Oh and my pet hate is "fun" games, they at least for me are inevitable tedium, like playing a one armed bandit!

the lie about being a simulation.

On the other thread, you said you agree with the definition of a simulation as "a model executed dynamically". All the fun games fit that definition.

Please define why YOUR favorite rules are a "simulation".

A simulation is simply a model executed dynamically, usually over time. Rules are not a simulation, they are models. A wargame is a simulation. It executes the model contained in the rules.

A simulation is simply a model executed dynamically, usually over time. Rules are not a simulation, they are models. A wargame is a simulation. It executes the model contained in the rules.

I've been trying to understand this, and failed totally, after expanding it out:

Rules are not a model executed dynamically, they are models. A wargame is a model executed dynamically. It executes the model contained in the not a model executed dynamically.

Execution by heavy-stone, dagger, sword, axe, gibbet/guillotine, pistol, rifle, machine-gun, gun-muzzle, or det-cord?

Is a recipe baking? Is a baking a cake? Is a cake a recipe?
Or are those three different, but related, things?

A cake is one result of using a recipe to guide baking activity.

The last wargame you played is one result of using the rules you picked to guide the simuilation activity.

-----

In the sense of the question at the end of your post, wargames are "executed" by means of hubris.

I love "word salad" definitions, particularly with a healthy dose of insider jargon. 🙄

One of the last wargames I played was set-up by a mate and used a mash-up of Martin Wallace's WATERLOO board-game rules (sequencing, movement and morale) with firing tables from IN THE GRAND MANNER. The 28mm figures were sourced ex-Ebay and glued – in 2 x 4 columns onto card.

We replayed Austerlitz – my mate was the French (bien sur!), his cousin the Ruskies, and I got the Austrians.

Now – my mate is a renowned rules-lawyer and cheater (allow the carefully-placed dice to roll out of the carefully-cupped hand just so, etc, etc) – but despite a lack of decent dice rolls and aforementioned cheatery – we won by making a plan and sticking to it like sh1t to a blanket.

It was a great laugh and we all had a lot of fun.

I parry your recipe/baking/cakery flim-flammery with this piece of doggerel:

Bakey-the-baker bakes Bakers'-bakery-bakes in the Bakey-the-baker's Bakers'-bakery-bakes bakery-baker.

I love "word salad" definitions, particularly with a healthy dose of insider jargon.

Is that why you started a thread asking for the defintion of a technical term?

No. I wanted to know why "some people" thought that their way of playing with toy soldiers was a "simulation", and thus superior to despicable "fun" games.
I have no desire for jargon.

UshCha, if that was aimed at me, trust me: a lot more thinking and planning went into old CLS "Formal Games" than I ever saw in the government stuff--and a lot less cheating.

I'll grant you that at the upper levels, pay and accomodations were better with the government, but even that wasn't true in the lower-level Army versions.

Plus, MY definition of a "simulation" is not complementary. Someone who loves them might have a different opinion.

To me a "simulation" dates back to the days of Simulations Publications. THEY called their trash "simulations", as you can tell from the name of the company. To me they were overly complicated, just for the sake of being complicated.
It's like the parable of asking 7 blind men to describe an elephant.

Technical jargon definitions are irrelevant, when we all have a different definition opinion. Nobody has the exclusive right to say what they are.

John the OFM – That just your bias, I have been massively disillusioned by games calling themselves fun. It would be more fun to poke your eye with a sharp stick than some of them. Just because its says it something doe not mean it is be it "fun" or "simulation". To declare my bias, if it says a fun game I avoid like the plague, its likely to be dire in my opinion.

A good test of what I consider as simulation I am interested in. That does not exclude other forms as being simulations but they are outside my area of interest. is as follows.

Must have a LINEAR Ground scale, i.e based on the real world. Technically I would accept curved surfaces but for land games over small areas Euclidian space is an acceptable approximation (basically a standard map).

The sections on terrain, morale (if any) command and control, and weapons must have similar amounts pages devoted to them.
Weapon Ranges must be a decent approximation of the recognized effective ranges of the real thing.
If bases are to represent multiple men/vehicles these should be representative of the ground they would normally occupy, in a formation, in some cases this may mean some sabot spacing would be required for different spacings of the same unit for different tactical stances.
Some way of hiding units even if just by dummies.

I look at this on a rules I spy on a stand at a show, if it fails on them it fails immediately as a simulation so is of no interest to me. Alas it happens too often. I live in hope of a better set than mine, with new approaches to get the job done faster and more accurately.

So are you saying that my definition is invalid?

John the OFM – Not invalid its your opinion so perfectly valid but for the like's of me not helpful, as I never played SPI games (I think read they are board games, correct me if I am wrong). Unless they wrote ASL but my encounter with ASL was brief and it was not to my taste (not hard I've never been a great 2D board game fan, too hard to get your head round 3D topography). Although there were some interesting takes on Urban warfare like Freezing but in my reading of actual events I have not seen it mentioned so it may not have been all that common but if anybody has a reference it would be interesting.

No. I wanted to know why "some people" thought that their way of playing with toy soldiers was a "simulation", and thus superior to despicable "fun" games.

You had a funny way of asking that.

Let's try to avoid, please, why this makes anything superior or inferior.

Sometimes, reading rules sets is much like reading the ingredients on the labels of food products. We are interested in what the contents contain. More specifically, many of us look for what mechanics are featured in the design (like Command and Control, Level of command that our miniature units represent, ground scale, figure scale ratio, recommended figure size, weather, terrain representation (if even addressed), possible use in a campaign setting, and some indication how long it takes to complete a game (depending on how many toys on the table) etc. While no set will be the end all for everyone, what is new and innovative in the author's approach?

For decades now, historical gamers have come to expect more of the same and there have been hoards of merely repeating the same old mechanics with different wording describing what ends up being some set we have already played in the past. What makes version 5 of the same game worth my money when it mostly is just a typo or minor revalue of firing or melee values?

What "I" wanted was a re-think of the selection of value sets used that would better model real life. Non linear. (Like all units of a bracketed "morale" grade are always the same- Green always valued the same, Veteran, elite, etc. That linear use mechanic does not reflect real life when the valuation are too linear.) My example of making that non-linear is formulating/determinations of what made the unit function: training and experience of the men, leaders and how long have these men served under these leaders? While the quantitative results possibly see multiple units rated the same, other pregame considerations can be injected into the scenarios that can easily capture more real life factors. The unit last ate 2 days ago a full meal; need supplies of water, marched to the battlefield while their opponents slept, ate and prepared their positions, weather effects upon conducting the battle, Fatigue, etc. These EFFECTS being enabled to easily be considered into the game design takes the design closer to empowering the gamers to more closely recreate the real life conditions of historically documented battles onto the game table. (What some of us feel makes it a GAME that more SIMULATES the real world factors that the leaders had to contend with.)

After 20 years and a large investment in research books, over 30 years active duty, civil service and contractor in DoD, what most miniature games produce verses real life are akin to old maid verses monopoly. Maybe harsh, but changing some value sets to base a game on can actually produce an easier to learn and faster to play miniature game.

I submit this for your consideration.

Dye4minis – to be honest you ideal simulation is not mine. There is much in the practical/engineering side that interests me, how to lay out defenses given a reasonably trained set of troops. How radios enhance communication (when they work). Command structures ad infinitum.

Varying the morale section can be done but to me its not the side of the subject I am most interested in.

Our set does have some differences from the "Featherstone Clones" but that by definition puts some players off, but mass selling was never expected or even hoped for for our rules. You are never going to get a Mass sales version to be a good simulation, most players are more interested in the minis than the game and that can rapidly compromise the game from a simulation standpoint. (see my 16 Nov post).

My rules do not have "morale". Agree that "morale" is no longer a major component/mechanic required to adjuvate unit behavior by itself. It slows down gameplay and size of units /casualties are not as important as their effects on units ability to remain functioning. Similarly, commanders can be hamstrung in controlling subordinate units as he and his staff can only do so much in a 15 minute turn. I measure the unit's ability to function- units functioning based upon the leadership ability and events to control the unit. I am NOT expecting mass sales- just lots of fun with reasonable events and fast play using lots of toys on the table.

I have done away with a few table/charts that need consulting during the game. Basically, just need range charts (in ACW -what I have focused upon) arty can vary in effective ranges and a CRT. Agree that the minis and visual quality scenery may distract from the "rules" but adds to the overall enjoyment of doing minis. Historicals have many choices in periods and sizes. ALL games become popular when the players are having a great time. That's probably the key factor in any rules sets be them "simulations" or just a "game". When you have folks calling you up and asking when the next iteration of your game will be held, you must have got something right.

Even in modern times where radios and computer interlinks abound, the real time constraint is at HQ in analyzing, deciding on a course of action, what units to be ordered to respond, composing prep orders and / order of execution sent. Not many games address the upward flow of communications and even how perishable that information can be. Command and control is NOT a radius and due to the above, does not take the upward flow of communications (and the use of that communication) fully into account.

Wish you luck in your rules development. We are probably more attuned than not.

I think 'simulation' has often just been used as a synonym for 'detailed', i.e. for players who need to 'know' which nature of ammunition one tank was using to shoot at each other, did it go through the frontal arc, which crew members did it kill and so on; or for exactly how many Sherden Guard were killed, wounded and captured when in melee with those Egyptian chariots, in order to better enjoy the game.

Otherwise, I agree with etotheipi and Martin R.

@whirlwind

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful explanation.

* Wargamers-simulation == more detailed.

* Wargamers-simulation != full-strength military simulation.

Now we can all be friends again. Thanks!

There are as many definitions of "simulation" as there are people trying to define it. It's totally subjective.
My definition is definitely hostile. To me it means making the whole thing so complicated you lose sight of what's really important.
It's like factoring in how uncomfortable the seat that the gunner had in a T-34.

My first exposure was to the absurdly complicated "games" that Simulations Publications, aka SPI, published. And this pattern was copied by their competitors.
It's what drove me away from boardgames, to be blunt.

Official Defense Department definitions ONLY apply to what they call "simulations", and we are in no way required to abide by them.

If worrying about the type of road your vehicle is driving on, versus what type of tire (I apologize for the American spelling…) or track turns you on, be my guest.
I would much prefer worrying about how the Comanche used coup sticks, and how it would affect the morale of his Warband. Question. Were Sioux or Cheyenne coup sticks better than Comanche? 🤔
Should the rowers on a whaleboat be singing "Hill and Gully Rider"?
Does Marty Robbins win if he dies in the arms of Felina? Or if he dies before she reaches him, does he lose?
What should the house's cut of the Faro table be?
These are much more important questions than should the floor of a house support the weight of a tank.

Yes. I'm talking "fun" games. I much prefer them to "simulations". But I would never sneer and imply that the type of games I dislike are inferior. If I'm not welcome to play yours, don't say that I'm too stupid to grasp the nuances.