"Complexity vs inadequate" Topic

In an interesting discussion we had recently it became an interesting issue. While in the vast annals of TMP there are many tirades about overcomplex historical rules but not similar tirades about inadequate rules so simple that thay fail to grasp key points about military systems, like command and control or weapons behavior, that they become mere second grade fiction utterly inadequate. Why do you think this is the case, if you believe my statement of the facts?

Ushcha…
Unsurprisingly…. what makes something inadequate like overly complex, is down to personal opinion or taste.

If my own game is inadequate… I update it. If another set or rules are, I will tinker or not play them.

As to what would make rules inadequate, that would depend on what one feels a set of rules should handle and whether they do that or not. It seems much clear as a concept than the opposite that get discussed more often as you say. And probably why it gets little attention.

An while I know my own proof reading cam be hit and miss, might I suggest you do it before pressed post, not only does it make your ideas harder to grasp…

I believe the first and perhaps most important point when making a post to support or argue against a specific point or points is proofreading. Spell check and the predictive text of today's devices can and will make a mockery of what is perhaps a logical argument.

I can get into a less complex game with a couple if plays. I've no interest in committing to a single game that takes up all my hobby time to comprehend. Fine for some people, just not for me. I won't engage in tirades about either in general, it's horses for courses. I tend not to play the simple games that ignore military logic – again, a choice – but recognise that it's possible for a less complex game to represent some aspects of the military art without needing to go into every detail.

proofreading

In a commercial/professional environment then…probably.

In a leisure channel like TMP then… looks like gate-keeping – and not in a good way.

---

As many (different) people as possible need to participate in these chats. Forcing anyone – through gate-keepery-style comments – to consult a dictionary/thesaurus/grammar-guide before clicking [submit] has a chilling (negative) effect on participation.

This is bad.

Anyhows – the designers notes ought outline what the rule-writers was attempting to achieve, and possibly the experience level of the players.

- Just starting out: Simple rules that grasps basic/main ideas
- Getting into it: A little more detail.
- Afficianado: Complex, loads of detail, etc
- Connoisseur: Subtle, complexity boiled down to elegance

The issue is when an experienced player starts using their perspective to dismiss material aimed at the less-experienced. This is actually a different kind of gate-keeping.

---

When I am pushing my Action Man Scorpion tank around the sand-pit I don't want to bother with command and control – I want to concentrate on running-over the Barbie doll so that Sergeant Fabulous can meet Ken.

In a leisure channel like TMP then… looks like gate-keeping – and not in a good way.

A dozen or so errors in three sentences is gatekeeping?

The real problem is the OP has some undefined subjective concept of quality that is not being expressed. That makes conversation difficult.

The problem with madcap spelling is that one can just as easily think that you mean "thread" as "tirade". These are very different words, with different meanings. Yet in the context of your thread (tirade?) both fit. 🤷

Anyway, let me defend what you may call "inadequate" by citing some command and control heavy games.

Years ago at a convention, I signed up for a Rorke's Drift game. My command was a section/platoon of British. I manned a length of "wall". The Zulu had broken through and were in my rear.
The GM said we were playing a modification of "Piquet". I'll take his word for it. 🙄 Players drew cards to perform actions. You could hold a total of 4 cards. By the "realistic" nature of the rules, I needed a "change formation" card to turn around to face the Zulu in my rear. The Zulu needed a "charge" card to charge me. As each turn passed, I could not draw the one card I needed. Neither could the Zulu. In the meantime I had accumulated 3 "volley" cards. Finally I drew a "change formation" card, turned around and fired three volleys into the motionless Zulu. The GM had the gall to ask me after the game how I enjoyed the realism. 🙄

In another game, I was one of the Americans defending a ridge in an AWI game. I had a single militia regiment on my flank defending against a Hessian flank attack. The British could not draw enough "action cards" (different rules) to both attack Yanks on the ridge and "activate" the Hessian flanking brigade.
In both instances, "inadequate" rules would have been superior to the stupidly complex ones we were playing.

I won't even go into cases where a Grenadier battalion at 20" is beyond the 18" command radius and can do nothing.

A guy in our group likes to tell about a Napoleonic game he played at a convention where the rules considered Morale the most important factor. He saved the day when he charged a Cuirassier unit with limbered Royal Horse Artillery. Superior morale prevailed, and the Cuirassier unit routed. The GM thought the result was perfectly fine.

My group is a very social group. We prefer rules with all the necessary charts on one sheet of paper. WE think the results are pretty accurate. Yet, there are those, naming no names, who would consider them inadequate, and therefore intellectually inferior. I prefer rules that allow me to do things, rather than needlessly limit me.

I won't even go into rules where a "wheel" is a formation change. In another set of rules, one pivots on the command stand, which MUST be in the center of the line. In another set, one pivots on the stationary figures on the end of the line.
Each set of rules considered themselves both accurate and adequate.

Oh. I said I wouldn't go into it. But I just did. 🙄

Nice to have you back, UshCha. Yes, I think I have a fair idea of what you regard as the One True Way to wargame by now. (Having been part of a C&C system for the best part of 15 years--staff NCO--and spending even longer on the relationship between weapons behavior and combat outcomes--ABD and AFSC in military history--I disagree.) Onward!

I suspect the answer is that there are many complaints about excessive complication because most modern commercial rules ARE over-complicated. They have to fill 32 pages somehow, after all, and there are separate books on each army and theater in the print schedule. There are few complaints about over-simplification of C&C, because this is, largely, just letting the staff go about its business while the wargamer takes the place of the general. As for weapons behavior, you'll have to be more specific. Are we arguing about how many round are stowed in the turret, the issue date of particular rounds or doing penetration angles again?

OFM makes some good points.

Too many rules are totally in love with "Command and Control" (a term I vehemently despise) as it usually turns into lack of command and out of control either because, as John points out. my leader is 1" to far away, I don't have the cards needed, or the dice just screwed me.

When did this ever become a "thing". I played many Avalon Hill, SPI and other strategic board games over the years in which command should have played a significant role historically, but there was never any such command and control rules. Those games always seemed fine without such a rule.

Maybe Axis and Allies would be better if you had to have an "Invasion" card to launch D-Day or attack Russia.

Kim

Oh, come on, Kim! I blame AH as much as anyone for the C&C mess. They did the original "Napoleon's Battles" after all, in which how fast you move is directly related to how close you are to The General, and how much AH liked that particular general. (Hands up any ex-military man who thinks having a general standing there shouting actually makes things happen faster.) Though my personal favorites are the rules in which generals the rulesmith doesn't like issue fewer orders in a turn. I think you can prove decisively by the study of military history that incompetent generals issue more orders than competent ones--frequently a lot more.

As for having the general close enough to shout at them, I specifically mentioned the Grenadiers being 20" away from an 18" command radius. I sent them out to take the Yankees in the flank.
Well, they must have forgotten why they went out. Plus, I neglected to move the Brigade commander 4" towards them.
Game mechanics. My bad, but a dumb result.

In my not so humble opinion, current game designers are far too proud of limiting what a table top commander can do. We've "tested" some AWI rules where as soon as a Regular unit takes losses, it reverts to being classed like Militia, and can never recover.
The designer must be so proud.
I name no names.

I think I'm going about this wrong. Maybe I should switch the narrative to:
Adequate vs bloated

Bloat, chrome, gadgets are the enemies of many rules sets.

A number of times I have read in print, from different people, advice to designers of generic / family board games saying:

'If you can cut a rule or mechanism, but still retain the feel / tone / scope of the game, then cut it.'

The same advice works well for wargames.

If you're tinkering with rules design you know how hard it can be to cut stuff – in which case get an arms-length third party to do so and see what they cut.

I see many published rules that would have benefited from an editor cutting 25% – 33% of the words and rules.

By way of example I said rude words looking at a set that had a half page dedicated to rules for the chance of risk to generals depending on; the rank of the general, grade of the general, type of hazard (shooting, melee, artillery, syphilis {OK, that bit's an exaggeration}) proximity to a senior general and so on.

Would the game be harmed by just changing that to, roll a 1 and the general is out of action.

If you're tinkering with rules design you know how hard it can be to cut stuff – in which case get an arms-length third party to do so and see what they cut.

If you are going to publish your game, even as a PDF, it behooves you to have someone besides your homeboys playtest it.

Otto Schmidt used to say that it took about six months per page to thoroughly iron out a set of rules--and so any time a set got much above four pages, you could count on things not meshing or wording not being 100% clear. I'm more and more inclined to agree.

Soloist by necessity, so my opinion doesn't mean much.
Personally, I like rules that are kind of in the middle between too simple and too complicated. I hate having so many rules that it becomes too difficult to remember everything.
I also don't like having to be commanded in all things. I kind of fudge rules every now and then anyway (as a soloist – does it matter?) – especially maneuver rules for units that are far from enemy units.
I do appreciate that games designers feel the need to somehow limit a player's "God's eye view" and have all units behave exactly how you want them to.

Are we talking about the age old issue of realism vs. playability? I've come across rule sets so complex that I couldn't finish a single read-through. On the few occasions when I forced myself to, I realized I still didn't fully grasp them—and actually playing them was pure torture. By contrast, I've rarely encountered rules that felt too simplistic. Because of this, I value playability over strict realism. That said, a well-designed simple system can still capture realism effectively. Simplicity is not the enemy of realism.

It's one thing to prefer complicated rules over simple.
But it's the contempt and venom that the OP uses to describe those who don't play with toy soldiers the way he approves of that annoys me. And he continues to do this time after time. 🤷

The forum almost silent for weeks. Ushcha returns and off we go…
Love or loathe he certainly fires things up…

'If you can cut a rule or mechanism, but still retain the feel / tone / scope of the game, then cut it.'

When I teach wargame design, we do top-down design from the objectives, so the concept is know why you are putting a rule in before you do it.

Same idea, different view.

Similar to Korvessa. My gaming buddy and I prefer less complicated rulesets. We are into fun over anything else.

I don't care to calculate penetration on the angle of a Sherman Tank frontal armor relative to the velocity/trajectory of the incoming 88mm round from a 45 degree oblique forward angle.

overcomplex historical rules but not simular tireades about inadequate rules so simple that they fail to grasp key points about military systems, like command and control or weapons behaviour, that they become mere second-rate fiction utterly inadequate.

Command & Control: Until the arrival of radios, militaries had to use messengers or some type of manual signalling device. Even in the 1970s, our Rifle Platoon HQ had 1-2 messengers and only one radio.

Historically, units are assigned an order to carry out an order, an objective to seize, or a standing order to do something when not ordered anything else. In my AFV warfare game overwatch is the default order; there's nothing special about it other than where you point the gun.

Units are always active and observing. When a threat comes into the LOS, both players immediately react and issue an order, normally to shoot or move.

C&C becomes important when a commander wants to issue a new order. Most WWII radios had enough range to cover the size of a typical battlefield table, but the message may not get through. Sending a messenger takes time, and when the new order arrives, it may be the wrong order, as the situation has changed.

Most C&C rules are arbitrary to keep players from unrealistically moving individual units in a way that breaks up a formation. When a situation changes for a formation, there should be a way for the unit to use its initiative to do what is needed. So I somewhat agree with UshCha that arbitrary C&C can be too simple or complex.

Weapons behavior: Wow, don't get me started on this one. Many games are designed to be fair and balanced so people can have an enjoyable pastime. There is nothing wrong with that. Real combat is anything but fair and balanced.

For me, most games are overly simplified, where each unit fires once per turn. To portray historic rates of fire using traditional game rules and mechanics would be overly complicated. I know, as I have tried it and failed.

Complicated or simple: Most game rules establish a set amount of time for a turn (seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.). Then the designer needs to use mostly non-historic game rules and mechanics to arbitrarily limit the command points, actions, reactions, etc., a player can perform with each unit, or there is a chance to activate each turn as a way to parse the actions and initiative within that set amount of time. No army has ever trained or fought like this, but it can be an enjoyable and balanced game.

Normally, players are focused on using the rules and mechanics as tactics and a way to solve problems rather than real military tactics. There are exceptions. There is no real right or wrong way to do it.

This is why I think game designs should be judged on whether or not they met the goals of the designer. If a guy designed a game to be fair, balanced, and uncomplicated, and it is judged to be that, then the design is a success, whether you prefer it or like it or not.

I've read UshCha's rules but have not had a chance to play them. I think he accomplished his goal. He even has diagrams of real tactical formations for players to use and an interesting interactive "activation" which presents tactical problems and tactics other similar games do not have. It's not the way I would do it, but that's not the issue.

Since most of the current rule systems and mechanics are arbitrary, it's left up to the individual player to judge whether they are historical, realistic, complicated, or too simple. No one system will please everyone.

UshCha, I use Grammarly, and I made over 30 corrections in this post. It's free.

I don't care to calculate penetration on the angle of a Sherman Tank frontal armor relative to the velocity/trajectory of the incoming 88mm round from a 45 degree oblique forward angle.

For me, a system that portrays historical accuracy without being complicated is fun. I want the same thing without doing calculations.

If you are going to publish your game, even as a PDF, it behooves you to have someone besides your homeboys latest it.

Absolutely. I play-test my game at conventions. My goal was to get new players up to speed in 10 minutes and not have to refer to a rulebook or use any of the current rules systems. The downside is that players are forced to use historical tactics. However, most tactics are common sense, so players eventually catch on.

The system is not fair and balanced, as the historical rates of fire in combat are easily portrayed. Some guns may fire 6-10 times in a one-minute turn (depending on how many new targets they engage), while others (like two-part 122 & 152mm ammo), 1-2 times in a minute. When players complain, I refer them to the historical references, which solves the issue.

Wolfhag

I'm glad that someone recognized that "latest" was an unholy result of AI, autocorrect and predictive text deciding that I didn't really mean "playtest".
Usually I catch it and humanly correct things. 🙄 Too often, I fail. 🤷

That's the result of not proofreading when the computer thinks it knows better than you.

The OP seems to have gone dark…

No doubt because of the warm welcome his posts usually recieve. 😉. I also live he's been unwell…. 🤷

First of all sorry for going dark, life at the minute has a way of getting in the way of interesting debates, especially minor domestic disasters, nothing serious but a leaking fridge does demand immediate attention as does child care and relative care.

Comments against the command radius command and control approach raises some intersting points. First of all I will agree that it is inadequate as its correspondnce in not great with reality. However eliminating it is even worse.

One of the key issues addressed by the command radius limitations is to prevent formation elements, possibly even formatons at ther minimum representation (say a base or a figure) from going anywhere on the board at any time, this to me would be the ultimate inadequacy. It has some vauge logic in that it prevets this. In world war 2 units had boundaries and in one attack Monty had guns fireing tracer in a night attach so there was a permanent visible definition to all friedly troops of the position of a boundary. Poably not the best approach as it defines to the enemy if they guyes where the boundary is but proably better than Blue on blue engagements at that period in time. Now the command radius is a poor representation of that but better than nothing but not by much. However the tireade againt it did not affress the real world issue it was trying to prevent. The harsh words about 1 minute I can go whare I want obscures the attemt to achive what is sorely needed. Its interesting that non of the comments seemed to be concerned with the reall world correspondance issues it raised. Does that mean that simplicity overides the need for correspondance with the real world, i.e. that is not a key factor in the players required design approach?

As to the negative comments on spelling and English, those who feel personally offended please feel free to use the stifle button youre absence from the thered will not cause offence to me and will save you much heart ache.

Wolfhag, I will reply later back under time pressure so will respond when time permits, your replies always deserve my full attention.

PLEASE proofread what you write. Either that or have someone else do it.
Your paragraph above reads like a random word generator.
Back in the previous century, I was a teaching assistant in a collegiate Science class. My job was to grade students' papers. They got upset when I downgraded efforts that were frankly unintelligible.
"This isn't an English class!" Did that mean that the only time they were expected to be competently written was in English classes?

Yeah. It's very easy to make fun of your spelling, sentence structure and grammar. Too easy, but fun.
But what is really offensive is your automatic instinct to insult those who play with toy soldiers in a way you don't approve of. You always start off by finding those who play with simple rules beneath your superior intellect. Grow up.

OFM Why not make a rational case rather than taking offence that is not there. You defend simple rules, that's fine, but what guides your decision? If you are simply playing a game, I do lots of that all the time, Dominos every week. Then coherence to reality is not a requirement. If simplicity of a game overrides accuracy, then again it's fine. The interesting question you have not addressed, in any post is what you require, simple overrides reality, nothing wro0ng with saying that, dominoes does not conform to any historical strategy but it still makes a fun game. Are simple rules for you more important than reproducing the tactical divers? If thats it then that's not a problem, but say so instead of taking offence for no credible reason.

As to making fun of my spelling, glad to provide you with the entertainment, but honestly if that is all you have, as we say in the UK, "you should get out moor", (was that a deliberate mistake)? Peaps I sould mk more mitakes to entertain you moor betterer?

Please explain why you insist on insulting everyone who doesn't play the way you do.
"Inadequate???"
🙄

Ladies and Gents…

…Chill

…Close eyes

…extend arms – wiggle fingers

…feel the breeze

…appreciate the aromas

…I'm getting umbrella pines in Sicily

…appreciate the sounds

…I'm getting marmottes near Lake Louise, or in the French Alps.

Anyhows – Sergeant Fabulous and Ken are getting on great – they're doing Wagyu steaks marinaded in Fish-sauce on the bar-be-que. Barbie is coming round with Teresa (coeliac), Nikki (Gluten-free), Renee (Pescatorian), and Daisy (pain in the arse).

---

The world is getting smaller and we need to make room for everyone – however differently enabled. One persons inadequacy is another one's omission. misunderstandings and mistakes abound.

---

@OFM

In our chemistry lessons we had a lab-tech – Wiggley Wesley – he'd emerge from his chemistry-larder looking mildly exacerbated – at any opportunity. Collective opinion: Closet Fascist.

🙄
I'm a fascist? You should really refrain from magic mushrooms before you post.

Orwell had a lot to say about those who threw around accusations of fascism without having a clue about what it meant. He thought it cheapened the meaning.

Ushcha.
As with any rule set its deciding what one wants to achieve and represent. It then becomes a personal judgement as to whether those are adequate or not and why that is.

If the thing I'm modeling has a 50/50 chance then flipping a coin is adequate.

If I'm modeling the things a unit can do then I'm going to come up with something different.

My goal with any rule set is to make the.operation of the system as minimal as possible as unobtrusive as possible and what parts are there, to break immersion as little as possible. I now find using numeric dice inadequate, because I don't want to be focused on the numbers I get on a dice, but rather on the decisions as they relate to the action, that are being made.

simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

That's what most rule sets I've played are "inadequate".

Ultimately I think the initial question is awkward as it asks to demonstrate a negative which is being based on a personal opinion. It's also why I've not really seen anyone answer it specifically,

@OFM

Unreserved apologies, totally careless and un-called for.

(Of course I meant it in the playground useage rather than full-on piano-wire and meat-hook sense).

Orwell remains on point. Shame he died so early.

👍

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.
The ONLY reason I call out the OP is because he ALWAYS insults people who play for fun. I have no interest in his complexity games, but I wish him well.
I expect the same courtesy from him. I enjoy games where all you need to play is a single sheet of paper with relevant move distances, ranges, terrain penalty and morale. We have had very realistic games with these sheets, and have also enjoyed ourselves. Most importantly, they FEEL right.
We don't need artificial complexity that masquerades as "realism".

Yet, the OP feels the need to sneer at us, basically implying that we are too simple minded to appreciate the brilliance of how he plays.
I've seen plenty of reports by others on games I would not bother with.
I used to play that type of game back in the previous century. But they bored me. Bored me. No need to comment.
When I see those games being discussed on TMP, I usually can tell from the title that it won't interest me, so I ignore them. Occasionally I'll look. But they don't go out of their way to insult the intellectual capacity of those who play differently. Sometimes I think that the only motive of the OP is to flaunt his superiority. Get over yourself.

As for spelling 🙄 and grammar 🙄 I admit that I only throw in jibes when I'm reacting to the tone. I've long retired as the TMP Grammer, and, Speling, Facscist, and now consider myself Emeritus.

I've only Stifled one person lately, and that's an insufferable who called me a liar, and then doubled down on it. Occasionally I'll un-stifle to see if he has anything worthwhile to say. He doesn't.

So, I won't Stifle the OP merely for being annoying. It's not personal. 😄 He can always drop his annoying schtick about his need to prove his superiority.

Wolfhag, as usual you make some interesting comments. About C&C and perhaps most relevant about what a wargame is. Your most telling is comment is:-

Normally, players are focused on using the rules and mechanics as tactics and a way to solve problems rather than real military tactics. There are exceptions. There is no real right or wrong way to do it.

I did go out of my way in the first post to say Historic wargaming, my implication was that this implied a serious overriding interest in the plausibility of the rules against manuals and accounts of the period. Clearly this is by your definition not "normal" (well I have never considered myself as "normal" and my kid often tell me that ). In which case what is adequate may have very little to do with historic tactics working as it's not a significant design parameter. In that case I agree simple may always be adequate as it is not being judged in a historical context to any appreciable degree. Therefore over complex and inadequate take on in Affect different meanings as its more about ease of implementation than conformation to historical norms.

Your comments on C&C and in the thread show this disparity between historic representation of limits and ease of play. Any command and control will not be perfect but even some limited restrictions may be seen as over complex as the limitations any such mechanism will make the game more "complicated" as far more analysis of the situation is required so that, hopefully when the new orders arrive the tactical situation has not changed so much that they prove irrelevant or even counter productive.

Not that the things now being discussed aren't intersting, I especially like wolfhags contributions to most topics and threads here rarely stay on topic.

I'm still struggling with the original question and premise as are it seems most people and even you as, we're discussing, again, what we think should be part of a set of rules… which at least favours responses in positive.. as opposed to a negative, and either way a subject opinion.

I'd agree that C3i is for me, poorly represented in the games I've come across, especially in implementation. Whether they are inadequate i can't say, as that would imo depend on the designers intent… though then id wonder why they released or published the rules if they thought that was the case.

Personally i broaddly distinguish between those that place the "war" first or the game first… they both get called wargames but comparing them is comparing apples and oranges.

Of course theres a broad spectrum on both on both sides.

FYI: Generally, it is an exercise in futility to expect a complete stranger on the internet to take your advice on what to do and how to behave. So, don't take offense if they ignore you.

Why does UshCha continue to "offend" many thin-skinned people on the forum? Who knows? Maybe he enjoys it. Maybe he's arrogant, offensive, and obtuse because he's British? I hope he doesn't have bad teeth, too. <grin>

I always choose to focus on the message intent and not the messenger. Hopefully, one day he'll use a spell checker, but don't hold your breath. Keep on posting, UshCha.

So, back to the message and discussion. I'll address them individually with my opinion and experience – feel free to disagree:

Over-complex historical rules: These are necessary if you are designing an IGYG or unit activation game system with a turn of a specified unit of time. When designing a new game, you want to make it different and better. This can lead to unneeded and complicated rules.

You have to use artificial and abstracted rules and mechanics to parse the action and create the Fog of War to "trick" the player's mind that real action is occurring. Most of the tactics end up being "gamey" like playing a card on an opponent to stop or limit their action. Play normally revolves around manipulating abstracted non-historical gamey tactics and maybe a % chance of acting to create an artificial Fog of War. While they may not resemble real combat, they can be interactive and fun, which is what most players are looking for.

Real combat takes place in a time-competitive OODA Loop environment with quicker units seizing the initiative, which is best done with a computer. However, there is a way to simulate it in a playable and more historic manner.

Realistically, a clearly communicated and understood order has an almost 100% chance of being executed in a specific amount of time or number of turns unless enemy action or a SNAFU prevents it. This makes it easy to simulate historic rates of fire and order execution without any "gamey" mechanics.

Historically, better crews and weapons systems are quicker than inferior weapons platforms and crews because they execute their OODA Loop before their opponent. Very little is left to chance, abstraction, or a die roll. The downside is that players need to have the same knowledge of tactics and make Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions as real combat-trained crews. That could be too complicated.

Inadequate rules are so simple that they fail to grasp key points about military systems: Most likely, if you read the designer's notes and intent, he may have written the rules to be overly simple for several reasons. It appears to me there's a fairly large % of players who like this approach because they are looking for a simple way to socialize, move their pretty toys around, take pictures, and admire each other's work. If you don't like them, most likely they weren't designed for you. It's pointless to criticise rules because they don't portray what you think they should. A sports car is not a terrible vehicle just because it cannot climb mountain trails.

They fail to grasp key points about military systems: From my experience, so do most miniature players, so why publish a game that people won't understand? Most players like the tried and true traditional gamey rules and mechanics as they are easier to play.

Why do you think this is the case? Because that's what a majority of miniature players want, so that is commercially published. Some excellent free rules are very playable and historical, but few people play them. It's also why only UshCha plays his rules, and no one else seems to. I'm sure I'll have the same issue.

Regarding inadequate rules: That's personal, as Gamesman6 stated. Look at your collection of rule sets. Are they adequate for you to play them? How many have you modified? No game out of the box will ever please everyone.

Every effort has been made to correct spelling and grammar, but I'm sure there are some mistakes. Feel free to point them out if you like.

Wolfhag

It's pointless to criticise rules because they don't portray what you think they should. A sports car is not a terrible vehicle just because it cannot climb mountain trails.

+1

Decide if you wish a game or a simulation. If it's a game, the main objective is to make it enjoyable and provide some decision making by the player so they can engage in problem solving. If it's a simulation, such as those used by the military, complexity is determined by scale. If you wish to model the effectiveness of the CCP Type 99A, you will need to consider a lot of detail. If you want to model the invasion of Taiwan, then almost all the complexity of the previous simulation is discarded.

Anyone who thinks they are "playing a simulation" is delusional.
They are making up arbitrary rules to give them the outcome they expect and want. Yeah. I said it.

Tonight we played a GASLIGHT game.
I had 2 British wood burning tanks. I fired a shot at a Wild Wild West Spider thingie. The first one, I rolled a 2. The Save was a 20, which was a Catastrophic Failure. It blowed up real good.
Later *I* rolled a 20, which was a Catastrophic failure on MY part. Instead of hitting the second Spider, I dropped a shell on top of a nearby British Dragoon regiment. I killed enough so that they failed morale. I declared myself tonight's victor, since I killed a unit on both sides.
Professor Fate survived, drat it. Yeah, I should have sent my Gatling Gun tank to rub out Professor Fate, but I had some Dervish cavalry to deal with.

I consider that game a realistic simulation, covering all relevantly realistic situations. The fun everyone had was irrelevant. Not at all relevant.

pfmodel +1

OFM – You are entitield to your opinoins even if they are inaccurate. Me I am glad of simulations thay keep me alive and safe, in planes, trains ans automobiles so the effectiveness of simulations is a proven.

If you chose not to belive it, it's your problem and of no interest or relivance to my take on the world.

Anyone who thinks they are "playing a simulation" is delusional.

You are starting to sound like UshCha <grin>

We play HISTORICAL WAR GAMES.

Every rule set can be judged by how well it models the historical aspect (scenario, OOB, terrain, weather, models). How well it models war (tactics, attrition, fog of war, simultaneous action, fatigue, crew expertise, command and control, OODA Loop, limited intel, SNAFUs, stupid decisions). As a game (mechanics, rules, playability, play aids, charts, clearly written rules, sequence of play, action and info markers, etc). I'm sure you can add to the list.

I consider all of the above as creating "special effects" in a movie. If the special effects create a high level of believability for the player or viewer (Saving Private Ryan as an example) based on their historical knowledge and military or civilian experience, then the system is a success in "simulating" war or combat to one degree or another. However, it's still a game because it uses gamey mechanics that no military uses or trains on (IGYG, unit activation, command points, etc). Movies use special effects and props.

Design for cause can provide a higher level of detail and believability than design for effect, which can be more playable.

UshCha feels his rule set hits a high level in all three aspects listed above and is shocked that players do not agree and would prefer a dumbed-down, entirely unrealistic set of rules. In addition, he feels that his system is "fun" because it recreates what he feels is fun. So be it.

Unfortunately, his initial post is normally so abrasive that no one wants to listen to it. He makes broad statements about his game but rarely gives detailed examples or videos for players to judge for themselves. I purchased the rules to judge for myself.

In my system, I make no statements about the game being realistic or a simulation, as these declarations are typically divisive in the gaming community, so I let the players decide for themselves. All I can do is reference the historic documents I used to justify the rule.

The action timing and OODA Loop system do not involve any of the typical game rules, so it is less "gamey" but in the end, players decide for themselves, as Gamesman6 stated at the start of the discussion. Disagree with UshCha at your own peril <grin>.

Wolfhag

A simulation is simply a model executed dynamically.

Every game is a simulation.

Allow me to repeat what I said.

Anyone who thinks they are "playing a simulation" is delusional.
They are making up arbitrary rules to give them the outcome they expect and want. Yeah. I said it.

Perhaps the second sentence is more important than the sensationalist non-diplomatic first one. 😄
I bought, and played ONCE the SPI game "Sniper". I believe that was the name. Bad memories. 🤷
As one would expect, it was a 1:1 "simulation" in the finest SPI tradition.
You could not simply pick it up and play it. One had to study it.
Okay, I lied about playing it. I found the rule about descending stairs, where one had to roll dice to see if one tripped and fell. Does trying to puzzle out a rule count as playing? Not a game for me!
I played a similar mindset DnD game run by a similar mindset New Yorker. He quizzed me about every step I took to walk to my horse.
Both experiences soured me forever to the arbitrary tendency of piling rules on top of rules to simulate an imaginary reality.
That game was high on my list when I started to flea market unwanted stuff. The purchaser had stars in his eyes when he bought it. (Similar to the guy who bought The Conquerors, unpunched for $20. USD)

If you must, call me the "anti-UshCha", thank you very much. Yes, I like to paint 28mm figures as accurately as possible. Yes, I play at a 1:1 skirmish level. No, I do not agonize over the rate of reloading a bolt action vs a muzzle loader. A simple ARBITRARY "they're reloaded the next time my card comes up" is fine. You avoid a ton of arguments. (However, I'm rather arbitrary in that a Sioux figure can be used as a Comanche, but just a headband makes him an Apache.)
I want to have a game where everyone has a good time. I have no interest in solving tactical puzzles.
I'm much more interested in how far from El Paso Marty Robbins can run, after he is "shocked by the foul evil deed I had done", than calculating the weight of a tank that enters a wooden (or brick!) building, to see if it crashes into the basement, if it has one. Can it support a Stuart, but not a Panther? 🙄

So, every time someone (naming no names) goes out of his way to sneer at how I play, I will call him out on it. Just like I suppose I did above, but as the kids say "Mom! He started it!"

"You are starting to sound like UshCha <grin>"🫣🤷

I've been thinking the same.

Certainly I've had my issues with Uschas "abbrassive" style. But I've decided to focus on debating the points he makes and only occasionally his style. He's " softend" a little 😉 but he is who he is.

"They are making up arbitrary rules to give them the outcome they expect and want."

I'd say that depends. What about wolfhags rules when the timing are actually based on the recorded stats of the vehicles in the "game"?
Yes the more gamey the rules then the further they are away from what they claim to be representing, a word i use instead of simulating. We're standing around a tables with models in well lit room.

However making blanket statements about what somethjng others do in out subjective experience, leads to the opening comment I made now

If you must, call me the "anti-UshCha", thank you very much.

Actually, I see the OFM as the same as UshCha. Both have internal constructed realities that they don't explain and then impose on others as if they controlled objective reality.

The fact that they are on opposite sides of specific issues is window dressing.

I can't really engage with either, except when they say something patently false. And only then when it bothers me because I feel it negatively affects others.