"Simplification" Topic

Simplification
I had an unusual request from a friend who plays Ancients. He is relatively recently married and his wife wanted to play a wargame to see what it was all about. Imagine his surprise when he asked me to set up a simple game of Manoeuvre Group (a moderns game) not an ancients game which he plays in a competitive environment but not with excessively competitive folk. He knows roughly our game and decided it was a less complex system than ancients that he plays but offers interesting challenges, so the challenge was on.
With beginners whether just a trial or a first game we stick to vehicles only, so as to keep the detail down to a bare minimum. As this was not strictly a training game we simplified some more. We used 2 vehicle types, Leopard 2's for the Germans and T80's for the Russians all 1/144 scale on a fairly busy 8ft by 6ft board. In the name of KISS, a bit unrealistically, we assumed the tanks were buttoned up at all times. This limits visibility arcs significantly ,so adds some challenge to the encounter but keeps rules and options down. We simplified movement a bit not allowing very fast movement , but constrained movement (Transit in MG parlance, again to keep complexity down).
Husband vs wife of course, with my compatriot Paul advising the Wife and me doing the bare minimum for Hubby, he has played before so not really not much help required. We did include the different organisations for the two sides and a morale/training difference, introducing some level of asymmetry so no good copying the other side move for move.
I was surprised how the game rapidly became a serious game, both side having grasped within about ½ a bound how many of the rules worked and had got it almost off pat by the end of the evening.
While it could not be called a simulation, there was far too much simplification, is was surprising how much some standard tactics still applied, like keeping a formation and over-watching while others of the team moved. For me it begs an interesting question as to when a game progresses from just a game (which this was) to a serious and useful simulation. This game was closer to reality than I had expected, but not at a level I would normally want to play. After the game and thinking about it a lot, it's not really clear to me there is an easily defined line between a game like this and a simulation. Clearly more significant detail adds significantly to it's correlation to reality, but even this over simplified game, had some lessons it could teach albeit very simple ones.
We asked for and got a post-game assessment. The only real issue raised was whether we should have set up a "driving" simulation for a few minutes before the actual game. Interestingly we have tried this in the past and it has not worked as well as you would think, and as they had got the best part of mastery of the system in half a bound it is a moot point. Perhaps we should actually set up an obstacle course with no shooting allowed so it's just a manoeuvre course, I admit I have never done this before. It would be about setting speeds for different sections, slalom needs a slower speed than a straight road, talking up a position, Hull down, Turret down, and passing obstacles could be part of it.
What is your opinion (if any) on the relative merits of the two approaches.

PS to those too intent on taking offence when none is intended. This topic is not a denigration of just a game. it's just for me it holds no interest. If I want to play a game, to me there are far better alternatives, but I do hate painting miniatures which may bias my opinions.

Simple is best – we use the one page rules for sci-fi battles with the grandkids, they love them

I think that there is certainly merit in the "driving" simulation for new players, especially if modern warfare is something they have not thought much about, but again I like simple

I try to simplify whenever possible, gone are the days when more complex meant better!
For myself, I like to watch others playing a game before 'dipping my toe in' though the others in my gaming group seem to be in the 'flooding' camp where you learn by losing, or by luck winning.

Too simple to me can mean over simplification, the results become too approximate to be useful/interesting. Unnecessary detail is definitely a no no. But too little vital detail is also a no no, unrealistic to me, is synonymous with no fun.

The tanks in this game failed, for me, because you need the flexibility to use high speed movement and the Unbuttoned/buttoned up scenarios to truly appreciate the problems in tank warfare. Without that "detail" which in fact is not detail but a vital parameter, the simulation falls down albiet some bits sort of work.

" Perhaps we should actually set up an obstacle course with no shooting allowed so it's just a manoeuvre course, I admit I have never done this before."

There's nothing wrong with adding such a scenario to your system, in fact it would best be used to teach new players the basics of your game/simulation (think of it as "training"… ;-)

IMHO a good game should require the use of smart tactics (or an idiotic opponent) to win. Your simplified version is a good game because overwatch etc was still necessary. A simulation also requires good tactics but with significantly more parameters. I think you've already landed on the distinction. Games remove some parameters in the name of simplification. Remove too many parameters and a game becomes boring or unrealistic (looking at you Team Yankee/Flames of War). The choices in a good game should be similar to those in a simulation but with less considerations to speed up the process

I don't want a simulation because I mostly game to hang out with friends plus the painting, terrain building, etc is a relaxing hobby.

I think its a fine balance between playability and accuracy, I remember when I wrote my Coastal Forces rules link – I had done some research on the period, and wrote them to be fairly simple with reasonable accuracy. The players found quite quickly that the number of misses and failures of real torpedoes made for a rather tedious game. I basically doubled their accuracy and effect and it worked! OK, we kill rather more ships than in real life, but my friends enjoy the game!

I don't want a simulation because I mostly game to hang out with friends plus the painting, terrain building, etc is a relaxing hobby.

I suspect most gamers are happy with this approach, especially as they get older.

pfmodel I'm not old (at 70) so how old is Older?

We put out issue 2 of our rules at this age. I'n a bit slower (well a lot slower at the moment,still reccovering) but not ready to give up on stuff.

I've said it before, but…. fidelity and resolution.

Too often rules in a quest for fidelity, "accuracy", resolution is shifted down to levels that the role the player nominally sits in, wouldn't know about.

Or it's handled in a way that's dealing with too much resolution in application

For the "Cohesion. It's the Name of the Game" rules I have been working on for over 20 years, it now plays without the use of charts. Actually, there are charts involved in setting up your armies but none needed for playing the game but for weapons ranges. The playtest I ran at the Omaha Beach wargaming club event last month, I put on a game using Baccus 6mm ACW figs, a Corps on each side (over 1,000 figures on the table ), 2 players who never saw the rules (one had never played an Historical miniature game before), taught the rules and the two were running it all on the first turn, by themselves. From set-up, teaching the rules and 10 turns later, picking up the game and adding in some time for hobby chat, they arrived at a definate conclusion it took 4 hours total.

Interesting sidebar- the first timer to historical Minis (playing the Rebs) crushed the Gruinard decisively and they both thanked me because he now had a new motivated historical opponent in the ranks!

By basing the game using different value sets, the game play handled the large number of units fast and allowed the players to make decisions at higher levels yet allowed for each unit (regiments and batteries for this iteration) to make 2 "actions" per turn. Still, game play was quick and neither sat waiting for their turn. The design allows for unit values to be assigned based upon historical data or rolled up by the players before the game. Units are not rated as Line, Conscript, veteran, elite etc. where all line is all the same value, etc. (Changing value sets away from the old linear valuation ways.)

I maintain that game can be a simulation and also a playable game without wasting valuable game time chart cranking!

I'n a bit slower (well a lot slower at the moment, still reccovering) but not ready to give up on stuff.

Never give up. As for older, i suppose we all feel as old or young as we wish, but i do prefer to sit when i have a game these days.

The tanks in this game failed, for me, because you need the flexibility to use high speed movement and the Unbuttoned/buttoned up scenarios to truly appreciate the problems in tank warfare. Without that "detail" which in fact is not detail but a vital parameter, the simulation falls down albiet some bits sort of work.

The guy wanted to show his wife/girlfriend, who had NEVER played before, what this wargaming stuff was all about.
Yet, you insist on super obsessive detail that only a nerd would appreciate. It's like insisting on variable rates of reloading a musket in an FIW skirmish game when trying to show how a wargame "works".
Once again, you are caught up in a "simulation" which obsesses you, when she wants to see what he is doing FOR FUN. Talk about removing the joy. For some people, The Sword and the Flame is too complicated.
"Dammit! Why can't this kindergarten brat understand differential calculus???"

By the way, using the word "bound" always tips me off that someone is determined to make a game too complicated.
But, that's just me. I want the players in a Moby Dick game to chant "Hill and Gully Rider" while chasing the Whale, and to pick up the pace when rowing faster.
YouTube link

Mark Twain is often (incorrectly) given credit for saying "I apologize for writing such a long letter. I didn't have time to write a short one."
The same could be applied to overly complicated rules. Like the infamous SPI games where you had to roll a die to see if you fell down the stairs. Sniper?

((I think it was one of those pre-Revolution French wits who said it. Voltaire maybe? 🤷))

There's another saying attributed to various people.

You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.

Merely simplifying somethjng by removing stuff from an existing system is likely to end up with something that's merely the original with missing bits, which may then not function as intended.

A simple system need to be driven by the goals needed to satisfy one's particular needs.

Additionally the game mechanics to achieved those, for me, need to be kept as simple as possible, for me too many game mechanisms rely on complexity.

The simple vs complexity seems to be on the basis, in this thread, of I really am not interested in tanks, just want to push "suff" about Vs I want a tank to behave like a tank with the inherent limitations and advantages. For this game I eliminated high speed movement, it makes it less complex. HOWEVER it makes tanks far less flerxable than they would be in the real world. If you have say a km of flat ground not overlooked by the enemy you can use that speed very effcetively. Its makes moving from 1 phase line to another practocal. Now if you want to over simplfy too get rid of phase lines i.e dont care about the real world that is a personal preference but to me would destroy any interest in the play.

J John OFM clerarly you hate reality in wargames as much as you hate 3D printing. A tank is a complex bit of machinary with lots of diffrent weapon systems. Over simplification destroys the point of a wargame for me its supposed to show hope the various systems can be optimised for a given situation.

Even when analysisng a piece of mtal for survivability under load you have to learn a bit about the analysius system. You seem to want zero knowledge games where considered thought is aborent.

Congratulations. You got everything about me wrong. 😄
That says a lot more about you refusing to listen to criticism than it does about me.

And you seem to think that proper spelling and grammar are irrelevant.
And you also claim to be a published author, and actually charge people for your rules? Remarkable! Inspiring!

Uscha
What is important in terms of resolution, say buttoned/unbuttoned, is only important if it's appropriate to tb4 fidelity to the level we are playing at as the person we are representing.

As such these thjngs aren't an either/or

Hence my pints of deciding on the role were playing at and then what the simplest way to represent that.

Again the issue with too many rules, imo, is the players is forced to consider to many levels of resolution with overly complex game mechanisms.

Gamesman6, cant ealy get my head round your comment. Observation over preservation is a key parameter in tank battles at the tactical level (roughly to company level), beyond that it's more to do with coordination and logistics.
On that basis buttoned unbuttoned is a key parameter at company or below. It may vary on a Tank by tank basis if say a platoon is attacking, one at the back overwatching may be unbuttoned but the element advancing may be too close too be 'safe', to unbutton. So detail is important if it's key at the level being addressed.

John OFM your reply epitomises over simplification, where failure to address detail leads to utter irrelevance to the issue being modelled or discussed

The whole point of your extra long opening post was that you were requested to show a total newbie a wargame, and you couldn't bring yourself to sacrifice needless detail.
To show similarities to the genre I play in, it's like introducing a newbie to American Revolution gaming, and insisting on emphasizing the superior quality of British gunpowder, but also demonstrating how it would degrade in humid environments. A newbie DOES NOT NEED that level of detail. In a campaign game with players who have played together for years, it's a small scenario note.

If I'm running a Comanche game with Iron Jacket, regular players need only note that if he is killed, his entire band will panic.
A newbie only needs to know that Comanches versus Texas Rangers have horses, and that you roll dice to shoot and charge 16".
I can add the superior firepower of Coffee Jack's Rangers to a group already familiar.

There's a huge difference between a newbie and someone who has been playing these rules for 5 years, weekly.
And some of us don't really care about what year the armor plate was forged to enjoy a GAME.
As Ringo said to Doc Holliday, "Age quod agis". Loosely translated, "You do you."
I don't think I'm a moral reprobate, or terminally stupid for not wanting to play your type of game. Excuse me, "simulation". 🙄

John OFM I DID Sacrifice much including unbuttoned and high speed moves, read the post properly. If it was an interested party wanting to join the grup.the simplification would be less.

When training UK pilots the check list they are taught from Day 1 includes an undercarriage check on a fixed undercarage plane. 'Gear down and welded '. As it is vital for the future. If you only play once a year you will never be other than a hopeless player, in which why play at all, my grandkids train every week at football so that they can do something.

So, did you scare the unworthy newbie away? 😄

Gamesman6, cant ealy get my head round your comment.

G6 no surprise there… 😉

Observation over preservation is a key parameter in tank battles at the tactical level (roughly to company level),

G6 yes but.. see below

On that basis buttoned unbuttoned is a key parameter at company or below.

G6 – sure but if I'm the Co CO I'm not telling my platoons let alone individual tanks when to do it. The only one it's important for that I need to consider is mine.

It may vary on a Tank by tank basis if say a platoon is attacking, one at the back overwatching may be unbuttoned but the element advancing may be too close too be 'safe', to unbutton. So detail is important if it's key at the level being addressed.

G6 Again sure. However doing that on a Tank by tank basis is adding work to the game determining who is and who isn't. When and why the button or unbutton. Different observation tests for each etc etc. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't consider it in design or gey rid of it completely only that we should simply the decisions the player has to make to those they'd make at the level they're playing.

All that resolution at an individual tank level doesn't make the fidelity any better for the player as Co or Plt CO. It just now means that player has to work and track a lot more.

We could come up with a simpler way to reflect it. Based on unit quality etc which is folded in to the game mechanics.

For me at least I want to keep the game mechanics as close to what the role would demand. If I'm adding more work for the players by stepping outside their role, the I want it kept simple mechanically.

When training UK pilots the check list they are taught from Day 1 includes an undercarriage check on a fixed undercarage plane. 'Gear down and welded '. As it is vital for the future. If you only play once a year you will never be other than a hopeless player, in which why play at all, my grandkids train every week at football so that they can do something

😉
Future proofing the training again depends on the resolution. As a pilot in training I'm do.need to know thsgmy landing gear is functioning whether it's welded or not so it has a value regardless.
If I'm the squadron commander I don't need to check thag all my pilots or doing this.
Again the goal is to have a fidelity appropriate to the level being gamed. Turing resolution higher or lower than needed will over abstract or ove4 complicate the game and it's experience

Gamesman6. You miss the point, a real commander has thinking folk below him to do the decision making, a simple roll of the die does not do it. Too often this leads to farcical results. Like tanks behaving in all formation's at once. The decision on formation is key but is not
Necessarily taken at the top level. Hence leaving out levels does not work with credible rules unless you have massive amounts of AI to reproduce the required decisions, not possible in the typical paper rule book.

I think UshCha points out that commanders issue Frag Orders at every level of command and let the next lower echelon handle the details.

However, I think the player should execute at the lowest level according to doctrine and the mission objective. Someone has to move the individual vehicles, even if you are "role-playing" the Company Commander.

The only other way I can imagine doing it would be to treat individual units like NPCs and roll the dice to see if they do the right or wrong thing or nothing at all.

My experience in a Rifle Company in the early 1970s was we hardly saw the CO as he was back in his HQ getting reports from the Platoon Leader. However, some Battalion Commanders in the Army in VN flew around in a helicopter ordering commanders where to place squads.

For me at least I want to keep the game mechanics as close to what the role would demand.

That's fine. I want to see the nuances of the weapons platforms and use of historic Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions in a Time Competitive game environment. So I basically role play each vehicle, someone has to.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, you had me in worried, no input for a while. Glad to see you and as always, thought provoking input.

Gamesman6. You miss the point, a real commander has thinking folk below him to do the decision making, a simple roll of the die does not do it.

Uscha.. ah.. diplomatic as ever
No… you miss the point! Yes thinking people… who aren't them. And I didn't say it needed to be decided by a dice roll, it just needs to be factored in to the mechanics.

Too often this leads to farcical results. Like tanks behaving in all formation's at once. The decision on formation is key but is not
Necessarily taken at the top level.

G6 Ok but asking the player to up there work load for something like a formation is not the same as then also expecting them to track and decided on sup units being buttoned or not. Your making a false equivalence

Hence leaving out levels does not work with credible rules unless you have massive amounts of AI to reproduce the required decisions, not possible in the typical paper rule book.

G6, at what point to stop tracking things? do you track shell type. Gun operations and function. Changing gear. We all at some point leave something out, things that would have an effect on the action. the question then is at what point we do it and/or find a way to incorporate it with the rules without making it a decision.

So again im not sayjng we can't do things for units below the role we are in, only that we have to decide what those things are and how they are implemented.

We're also now hung up on the buttoned unbuttoned thing.
Your original posy was about deciding, rightly of wrongly to simplify the rules for a newbie. One of those decisions, rightly or wrongly, that to make the rules easier, by just switching it off, then saying it had a effect.

Again switching things off without factoring the effect doesn't make the rules simpler, it makes them incomplete.

Simplifying is deciding whether we need to actively represent an action in the game and if not then don't make the player do it.
But again that's our decision we have to make on a case by case basis.

Wolfhag
That's fine. I want to see the nuances of the weapons platforms and use of historic Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions in a Time Competitive game environment. So I basically role play each vehicle, someone has to.

G6 sure, the question still is, in simplifying, as that's what we're discussing, what are we roleplaying, were only roleplaying parts of them.

And as I also said, when we do go as the player to those roles, ive mentioned before that i use a 1 up 2 down model as its somethingb found in doctrine and makes logisitic semse for the player tl handle. Then….how do we do that effectively and simply.
We discussed before different mechanics to achive it

Uscha. Following on… this

real commander has thinking folk below him to do the decision making.

Yes… but those thinking folk are not you.. they are their own people who would make their own decisions based on their own interpretation of the event where they and as they perceive them.

It's been my bug bear that while no dice system,as you say,at least one I've seen can replicate that process. I find the idea of the player telepathically controlling their sub units equally, farcical, as you call it.
Of course unless we're playing a mega game we've got limited players so we have to find away, which lead me to my approach.

And of course people can player their games however they wish, but I do have issues when alternate ways are disamissed our of hand. 🤷
Though your mileage clearly does vary.😉

Wolfhag, you had me in worried, no input for a while. Glad to see you and as always, thought provoking input.

I was sitting back to see what direction this was going to go. But couldn't you, as the designer, have written the same "thought provoking" comments too? Training videos would work too.

I don't understand the complete methodology behind your direct fire rules, but I won't pass judgment until we discuss them. The gunnery and damage rules for WWII are very different from when the Abrams was introduced to the present time, and can handle abstraction without losing historical detail.

Often at conventions, people will take a look at my system and say, "You don't need to go into that level of detail." My response is normally, "You don't but I do."

My motivation for writing my system came after reading "WWII Ballistics and Armor" (evidently, I'm a nerd) and the desire to reflect the historical rates of fire and nuances of armor protection, which I think is important but lacking in almost all games.

For me, it was really eye-opening about the variables that affect armor protection and why it is important enough to include in the game, IF you don't end up torturing the players. My early attempts were TERRIBLE!

Fortunately, the only place I had to test the game was at conventions, so I needed to make the system simple enough for new players and keep the original design intention. I've gotten it to the point where a newbie can come up to speed quickly without losing the historical details that are still there, but transparent to the players.

The details I'm using for WWII are to determine hit or miss, hit location, ricochet chance, armor thickness, and ricochet chance. The level of penetration and the weight of the shell determine penetration.

The discussion about simplifying was good for me because I looked back on some of my work and was able to combine two steps into one. Thanks.

G6 sure, the question still is, in simplifying, as that's what we're discussing, what are we roleplaying, were only roleplaying parts of them.

My company level battles are what can be described as an engagement that historically takes 2-5 minutes. A battle would be composed of multiple engagements and waves throughout the day.

When moving and ordering individual vehicles, I've never looked at it as role-playing. Basically, they react to an enemy threats in their LOS or radio call and then use doctrine and common sense in issuing move and/or shoot orders with the overall mission and objective considered.

If the CO does not have LOS on the situation, there is not much he can do about it in that short period of time, except maybe ordering changes in between enemy attack waves.

Are there any limits you put on the units you are role-playing?

Wolfhag

TBF you introduced the phrase roleplaying. 🙂🤷

I don't think when we shift out the postion we are occupying we are roleplaying either. Or rather we can meaningfully do that because we're having to RP multiple role and genrally with more information than any one of them would have.

Now in you le TvT game given scale and duration, what you have done seems to me optimal, and you gone though a process of making your approach different enough and focusing on what's appropriate to know and deal with, and what has been trimmed from player interaction has been folded into tne system, not just switched off.

I've mentioned in previous discussions, my interst generally is in the decisions and actions that units make.
So a sub unit will provide a set of options, based on training, experience, orders and current situation, that the player then uses to operate it.

It's the only thing that I've found that creates, simply the situations I read about in accounts where units operated both sub and super optimally.