"Complexity vs inadequate" Topic
143 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article It's a terrain expansion for Heroscape, but will non-Heroscape gamers be attracted by the trees?
Featured Profile Article I spend my first day with a paper-cutting machine.
|
Pages: 1 2 3
| Gamesman6 | 07 Sep 2025 8:28 a.m. PST |
Well you also said… "Particularly since I have no clue what an OODA Loop is, and have no desire whatever to learn. I've gone all these years without a clue, and I can go on for many more." And people have said you can do fine without it… just its odd to dismss it out of hand.. though now you've decided you can find out about it… 😉🤷. No one in gaming needs it… and if you've not needed it since the 70s.. 👍🏻 though do you then expand that rational and keep other things that were fine in the 70s? Hows that 8 track and beta max? But if they work they work…
🤷😉 though electronic media has moved q bit eh.. though this message board is a but old fashioned… No offense that i can see, at least not taken.. Blog… oh man that's so 2010s… you're so old skill that the things you don't have and dont want are old skool |
 John the OFM  | 07 Sep 2025 9:07 a.m. PST |
Blog… oh man that's so 2010s… you're so old skill that the things you don't have and dont want are old skool. Hey! That's good! You're genuinely calling me out on being an "Old Fart Meister"! 😄👍🍺 And it fits! I appreciate that so much, I endorsed you as a "Good Trader"! I don't often do that. |
| John the OFM | 07 Sep 2025 9:09 a.m. PST |
I'm a Ptolemaic Epicycles guy. I don't need no stinkin' Copernicus nonsense!
Let alone Big Bang or Cosmic Inflation. |
| Gamesman6 | 07 Sep 2025 12:33 p.m. PST |
Whatever floats you're boat.. or in your case a raft or dug our canoe 🤷 |
| Wolfhag | 07 Sep 2025 1:28 p.m. PST |
Mr. Fart Meister,
Why do you persist in creating this false narrative of playing dumb? I've seen your constructive posts on TMP. You are a very knowledgeable and educated guy, and not as clueless as you claim to be. So why? Do you get perverse satisfaction from trolling and challenging people, or are you lonely and only strangers on the internet will communicate with you? You can obtain an AI companion that you can verbally abuse for free and not burden us. Regarding the OODA Loop: When you Googled OODA, I'm sure you saw entries from John Boyd and at least skimmed over them. He provides excellent examples and documents how it is employed as a tactic in air combat, as well as its applications in other forms of combat, including war games. So why did you reference an Ivory Tower scholar and a historian with no combat experience over John Boyd, the acknowledged expert on combat OODA, and then declare your false ignorance? Don't bother answering, we all know why. You are so transparent. You and UshCha should do a podcast on the philosophy of war game design. It's sure to go viral. <grin> No one is going to take you up on attempting to school you on the OODA Loop Decision game design or anything else in the future. We all know it's a Fool's Errand. However, I do not think you are hopeless. I'll put together another post shortly to help you along the way. I know you just can't wait, but you'll have to. Wolfhag |
| John the OFM | 07 Sep 2025 2:02 p.m. PST |
Oh, I'm mellow today. The Steelers just pulled off a win against the despicable Jets, thanks to Aaron Rodgers.
I'll admit I was wrong in not wanting him on my Steelers. But I guess I'll go along with it for a while. 😄 OODA has not been on my horizon for 50+ years, and I see no point in catching up now. I think it was thrown out to refute something I said, but I can't be sure. 🤔🤷
I only Googled it because TMP denizens, naming no names, have a very annoying habit of tossing acronyms around with gay abandon. Not that I'm calling the perps "gay". It's a phrase that's been around much longer than the newer use.
But sometimes acronyms can be as jarring as the current abuse of "pronouns". Speak real English! Not made up English. |
| John the OFM | 07 Sep 2025 2:10 p.m. PST |
When I googled OODA, I came away with the impression that orders were issued post facto. After the fact. I probably didn't understand it, but I'm not about to waste my time pondering.
I'm WRONG??? 😱😱😱 Oh well. I'll live. I'm not losing any sleep over it. Carry on. Remember what I always say about "doing my research"? It means to Google a topic, and then go to the sites that you know in advance will agree with you.
Strike 1, and I'm puzzled. No point in wasting my time any further. Note that I'm not trying in any way to hinder you. I'm simply saying that I'm not interested. I have no interest in cooking pickled quail's eggs in aspic. So why research it any further? |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 1:35 a.m. PST |
Ironic that you claim that you don't want to dig in to the OODA cycle… because it's a waste of your time and then have wasted time telling us what a waste of time it woild be in posts here all.
Then despite telling you wouldn't wate time doing any research, telling us you did a little research. If its all just a waste of time then you much be enjoying it. It reminds me of a lovelorn teenager telling everyone they don't like the object of their affection while talking about it all the time, it think you protest too much. While Uscha has a fairly myopic approach to game design he at least stick to the subject, and doesn't troll. OODA, which is a simple version of the more complex model, can be useful. No has to use it, though those of us who do have tried to explain why we do, here and especially elsewhere. Im all for understand how things were done back in the day. But…. "new" ideas can be good too. Though ironically Boyds work that formulated the OODA model predates your wargaming experience that is fine without it. |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 3:11 a.m. PST |
A final thought. Whether you think it's a waste of your time, you are "using" the OODA cycle whenever you make a decision in a game or in life. |
 etotheipi  | 08 Sep 2025 3:40 a.m. PST |
It reminds me of a lovelorn teenager telling everyone they don't like the object of their affection while talking about it all the time, it think you protest too much. Given the OFM's propensity to frequently declare that he has me on stifle, that made me wretch a little… ----- The challenge you're having is the OFM's argument is an Appeal to Ignorance link . If you don't know about a thing, you can't assess its relevance to your past state. Nor can you begin to assess your future need. If he had said, "I don't know about that. I don't know whether it would help or not, but I'm not interested." i doubt either of you would react. However, the OFM has repeatedly demonstrated the tendency to insult people who don't agree with him and to invent offenses when people question his personal orthodoxy. As indicated about, that beahvior does dilute the ability to get any useful knowledge on the topics he knows. |
| Wolfhag | 08 Sep 2025 7:06 a.m. PST |
John,
To your question of: Why should I design a game using the OODA Loop: Answered by ChatGPT: Using the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop concept in a time-competitive (OODA Loop Action Timing) game offers several advantages over traditional "I Go, You Go" (IGYG) and unit activation systems
. By simulating the rapid, continuous decision-making of a real-world conflict, OODA-based games create a more dynamic, realistic, and engaging experience. 1. Increased strategic depth
In IGYG games, a player takes a turn activating and moving all of their units, and then the opponent does the same. This can lead to a predictable sequence of moves. In contrast, OODA-based games focus on out-thinking your opponent by cycling through your decision loop (acting) faster than they can. Creates tactical dilemmas: OODA introduces the concept of "getting inside your opponent's loop". For example, a player might execute a feint to bait an opponent into a suboptimal response, causing the opponent to get stuck in their own loop while the first player is already on to the next action. Emphasizes anticipation and surprise: Instead of reacting to a full-scale assault, players are constantly monitoring the environment and their opponent's actions to anticipate the next move. This makes surprise and deception more potent strategic tools, disrupting the opponent's rhythm and causing confusion. 2. Enhanced realism and fluidity
The turn-based nature of IGYG and many unit activation systems forces players to wait for their opponent to complete all actions before they can respond. This can feel artificial. A time-competitive game built on the OODA concept offers a more realistic, real-time feel. (Note: players can change and issue new orders) Simultaneous action: OODA-based games can simulate the chaos of real-world conflicts where events unfold simultaneously. Some activation games allow for reactions during an opponent's turn, but an OODA framework integrates this reactive decision-making into the core gameplay. Models the "fog of war": With a faster-paced game, players must make decisions based on incomplete or rapidly changing information. This creates a more authentic "fog of war," where good information-gathering (Observe) and skillful interpretation (Orient) are rewarded over simple resource allocation. (Note: As each game turn is announced, no one knows which units will "Act" and execute their order.) 3. Rewards player skill and use of tactics over resource dominance
Many IGYG games can become a "rich get richer" scenario, where the player with the larger army simply overpowers the opponent. In OODA-based games, superior numbers or units are not enough to guarantee victory. Focuses on tempo and agility: A player can win by operating at a faster tempo than their opponent, effectively outmaneuvering them even with fewer resources. The skill lies in accelerating your own OODA loop while slowing down your opponent's. Emphasizes the "Orient" phase: The ability to take observed data and correctly interpret it, free from bias, is the most critical stage of the loop. This skill-based "orientation" allows a clever player to use available information to form a more accurate model of the situation, giving them an advantage even with an incomplete picture. (Note: the units are always active and observing. This is where the player sizes up the situation and issues an order or a course of action. Orders are not magically executed immediately, as in IGYG games. The player determines how long it will take and records the future turn to Act.) 4. Continuous engagement
The start-stop nature of IGYG and some unit activation systems can lead to periods of downtime where a player is simply waiting. A time-competitive OODA game keeps all players constantly involved. (Note: units are always active and observing, just as they do in real combat). Prevents "analysis paralysis": By emphasizing speed, the OODA loop discourages players from over-thinking every possible option. Instead, they are rewarded for making rapid, effective decisions and adapting on the fly. (Note: normally, you issue a move or shoot order. Overwatch is the default order.) Promotes adaptability: An OODA-based game encourages a mindset of continuous feedback and adaptation. As soon as an action is taken, the player is already observing the results and planning the next move. A bad decision isn't a game-breaker; it's just new information to be processed in the next loop. 5. More challenging and dynamic gameplay
The OODA framework creates a more complex and satisfying puzzle for the player to solve. Simulates initiative without a fixed turn order: Rather than a simple "who moves first" dilemma, initiative becomes a dynamic aspect of gameplay. A player can seize initiative by acting decisively (before his opponent) and forcing their opponent into a reactive posture. (Note: there are no initiative rules needed.) Supports a greater variety of tactical approaches: The focus on continuous observation and reaction allows for tactics like suppression and disruption. For example, a player might take an action that degrades an opponent's ability to observe or orient, effectively slowing down their loop and creating an opportunity. Of course, AI responses may include mistakes but this looks very accurate. The Marine Corps applies the "time-competitive" Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) loop, developed by Air Force Colonel John Boyd, as a core principle of maneuver warfare. The goal is to act faster than an adversary, seizing the initiative and dictating the terms of engagement. This approach is a foundational element of the Marine Corps' philosophy laid out in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1 (MCDP 1), Warfighting John, I think the concept you are missing is timing or the amount of time it takes a unit to Observe (situational awareness), Orient (evaluate the situation and potential tactics and course of action), Decide (issue the order), Act (the future time the crew or unit finishes executing their order). As a player, all you are concerned with is the amount of time. Many new players overly complicate the issue. For my AFV version, I use historic timing values for maneuvering, reload/rate of fire, engagement/turret traverse, etc. Vet and Ace crews are quicker; the poor crews are slower. Flanking, surprising, and suppressing your target decreases his Situational Awareness (Observation) and forces him to take additional time to react and go through his OODA Loop to shoot, giving you the initiative to shoot first. This is how inferior weapons platforms can defeat superior ones. Players must employ real tactics to achieve success, as there is less reliance on dice or rule abstractions. You can assign deterministic values to these actions to keep it simple, or use a die roll to make them slightly random for increased Fog of War. If a new threat is detected, you can cancel your current order and issue a new one. Feel free to ignore it for games, but you can't ignore it in real life, no matter how hard you try, unless you want to get yourself killed. Try Acting before or without Observing and see what happens. Wolfhag |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 7:48 a.m. PST |
etotheipi
Given the OFM's propensity to frequently declare that he has me on stifle, that made me wretch a little… Well i aim tk pleaee😉
----- The challenge you're having is the OFM's argument is an Appeal to Ignorance. G6 I did consider pointing out his various logical fallacies but then Considered that he claimed he'd gotten by for 60 years or so without them and he didn't see any reason to find out about them to then do a cursory bit of googling to then infkr us hed gotten by withbout jnowing what they were despite displaying them… and so on.. |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 7:48 a.m. PST |
etotheipi
Given the OFM's propensity to frequently declare that he has me on stifle, that made me wretch a little… Well i aim tk pleaee😉
----- The challenge you're having is the OFM's argument is an Appeal to Ignorance. G6 I did consider pointing out his various logical fallacies but then Considered that he claimed he'd gotten by for 60 years or so without them and he didn't see any reason to find out about them to then do a cursory bit of googling to then infkr us hed gotten by withbout jnowing what they were despite displaying them… and so on.. |
| John the OFM | 08 Sep 2025 8:41 a.m. PST |
All I am saying is that I find jargon a mask for unfounded intellectual superiority.
If jargon and acronyms float your boat, toot away. Yes, I Googled it. The Wikipedia article rambled on like a bad translation from Sanskrit. I felt no need to struggle with it for more than 10 minutes.
To be blunt, you have to be trained to put up with that.
I've gamed for over 50 years and don't need gibberish to explain or justify it.
I gave up reading Hegel too, back when there were books to be read. Nor did I brim with enthusiasm reading Camus. Okay. Duh. I'm ignorant. Does that make y'all happy? I'm sure that feeling superior to the likes of me brightens your day. Have at it. |
| Wolfhag | 08 Sep 2025 10:47 a.m. PST |
No, John, you are not ignorant. I've met several veteran gamers who have decades of IGYG experience and struggle to grasp a Time Competitive OODA Loop System. They seem to be stuck in the IGYG game system and waiting to be told what to do and when. More detail normally means more complexity, but OODA is simpler with more historic detail, which is counterintuitive. The picture below is of a 14-year-old with a slight learning disability who was play-testing my game for the first time. He had no previous war gaming experience. As you can see, he is commanding 10 tanks.
I gave him and his buddy a 5-minute explanation of the game concept and the mechanics of the data card. On a few occasions at a convention, a teenager with no war gaming experience beat the pants off veteran gamers with decades of experience. You are not alone, John. Old habits are hard to break. Most game systems tell players what to do, when, and how often. When it is their turn, there is normally very little thinking or decision making, just roll the dice and then wait for your next turn. A Time Competitive system like OODA forces the players to pay attention to the action as it slowly unfolds, as in real combat. It's always your turn to react and issue or cancel an order. You need to think ahead and react by pausing the game to make a decision, and when the order will be executed. The GM does not tell you what to do. This gives players more agency and chance-taking, but can be intimidating to players not familiar with a Time Competitive system or familiar with real tactics. Simplicity: As soon as you execute an order, immediately, during the same turn, decide whether to shoot or move. Move orders are obeyed immediately by placing a speed marker by the unit. To shoot, roll a D6, and on your unit data card, it will show how many turns it will take to execute the shooting order. Add that number of turns to the current game time. As each game turn is announced sequentially, players will pause the game and execute their order, and record their turn for the next order. It essentially simulates the OODA Loop, and you don't have to know what it is. In fact, I don't even mention the term to new players because they can get confused. I can't make it any simpler than that! After seeing the OODA Loop system, many players still prefer the IGYG / activation rules. To each his own. There have been more than a few pseudointellectuals who have successfully complicated a simple, intuitive, and natural process. Too bad you picked them. Wolfhag |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 11:39 a.m. PST |
John all you're saying? Really? You say a lot of different things many of which contardict other rhjngs you say and make assertions of opinions.
I have noted your "victim/persecuted" undertone.
And for someone who revels in supposed attacks ditected toward you, yet are quite happy to throw shade on others.
"Unfounded intellectual superiority." "Don't need gibberish" That's just the last post and your entire contribution to the thread has been to troll.
You're clearly not intersted in the OP the poster or the way the diacuasion has gone. So…. 🤷🤔🫡 |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 11:47 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag careful John struggled for 10 minutes. Now you're telling him a 14 year old boy picked it up and was playing the game. |
| John the OFM | 08 Sep 2025 12:40 p.m. PST |
Here are the games I have played for decades that do not require gibberish, fads or acronyms.
The Sword and the Flame
Flames of War
Empire
1776
Patriots and Loyalists
Broadsides and Boarding Parties
And so on.
Sure, some are lame, but I still enjoy them. Not quite "simulations", eh? Why you feel the need to pity me if I don't feel like admitting that everything I have done for decades is woefully in Error escapes me. 🤷
(Oh look! The Old Guy can use emojis! How precious!) Why IGOYUGO, or however you spell it, is considered to be Satanic also escapes me. |
| John the OFM | 08 Sep 2025 12:51 p.m. PST |
Let me tell you a fun story about "simulations". At least I think it's funny. 🙄 Years ago, back in the previous century, I subscribed to Strategy and Tactics magazine. Standard size magazine, often with enough padding and filling from the maps, rules and counters.
Important part: It came in a plain Manila envelope.
The return address was "Simulations Publications" etc.
My father worked in the Post Office. His co-workers would rub him about what dirty magazines I subscribed to. STIMULATIONS Publications? Playboy? Penthouse?
Yes, he had to explain. 🙄
So, to this day, I can't take seriously the entire concept of "simulations" regarding WAR GAMES. You're only fooling yourselves, you know. |
| Gamesman6 | 08 Sep 2025 12:55 p.m. PST |
There yah go again…
That your assumption that those games don't require gibberish… as the definition of it and what things are covered by it, is your own. Of course I've seen most of those games referred to with accronyms… but.. And building list an Appeal to authority? Ah back on the simulations… good to see that back.. I don't pity you… that's another straw man. Satanic? Another strawman. IGYG
Some just don't want to play that way… you should get that as your whole argument has been about what you don't want to play. But maybe that escapes you too? 🤔🥸 I know one should feed a troll… but.. |
| John the OFM | 08 Sep 2025 2:42 p.m. PST |
..,you should get that as your whole argument has been about what you don't want to play. But maybe that escapes you too? This whole thread starts out with the OP calling the way I want to play "inadequate". Which is consistent with the vast majority of his posts. He considers the way I and a very large number of people play, not only inadequate but inferior. He consistently considers us mentally challenged. He brags about it too. So is it any wonder that I reply hyperbolically? 🤔 It should also be apparent that I don't particularly care for jargon disguised as brilliant insight. "Hey! Let's invent new words!" |
| John the OFM | 08 Sep 2025 3:53 p.m. PST |
Again, back in the day, our club had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with the guy who thought he was the founder of the club. Long story.🙄
He decided to charge dues, for what I can't fathom.
He decided to "assign" projects for us to paint, for a set of rules that *I* introduced to the club. He never played, by the way. He just stood there and watched, benignly.
He would call the games we put on "not serious", since we didn't keep score. The Plains of Abraham is not serious? Maiwand is not serious? Check your 6???
Oh. A "serious game" was a DBM tournament that only he and his brother played in.
At this meeting, those of us who were offended told him off.
He tried to have us banned from the FLGS where we then played.
Afterwards, his friends came up to us and said, "But John. You have to understand, that's just the way he is." 🙄 As if that's an excuse for bad behavior. So, when the OP starts off with praising his way, and insults mine, I see red, and reply accordingly. I have had PMs and texts from those who say, "But OFM! You have to understand…." 🙄 Nope. So, as I keep saying, "Don't try to shove jargon and acronyms down my throat, and tell me I don't understand gaming." |
| Gamesman6 | 09 Sep 2025 2:21 a.m. PST |
This whole thread starts out with the OP calling the way I want to play "inadequate".
Does he?
And besides the point… im talking about out you not what the OP who hasn't commented in some time. Jargon? So when you didn't understand.. i presume OODA ( an accronym but… and you day thjngs like DBM, a ancronym/jargon assuming wveryone knows what it means) you just dismissed it, attacked it and insulted those who were using… 🤷 So you had a bad experience at a club? 🤷 Op was a sketchy subject l.. I didn't seem him address you until you inserted yourself in the discussion. Then painted your old issues with the OP and others Except those things havent happened. And when confronted you shift the goal posts so now you're on the past in a club, bringing up the OP and making claims of things that weren't actually said. Anyone has tried to do is explain why we do what we do, personally play what you want…. No ones forcing you to comment here or do anything. If you want to engage that's on you. 🫡 |
| UshCha | 12 Sep 2025 11:49 p.m. PST |
I re-read my original post to see what the fuss was about. I was very specific saying HISTORICAL games. Thus accusations about me commenting on othetr types of games or games in general are unfounded. It also pointed out what was mean by inadwquate, not enough coherance with the real world to allow historical implementation of tactics in HISTORICAL games. Now I did imply, but it did not seem unreasonable to me, an assumption that anybody replying would be interested in the interplay between a simulation (historical) game and the real world history. If you were not interested in that section of history, then not unreasonabley I would have thought it would be sensible for folk to not comment on stuff they were not interested in. I have found games inadequate as they do not portray sufficently accuary to allow historic tactics to work. That is a personal opinion, aimed at a specific aspect of HISTORICAL gameing. There are lots of "inadequacy's" even at the basic level. like "you must shoot atthe nearest target". This is cotrary to the real world approach to tactics. Th M1 tank manual notes if you can't penetrate the fron armour of an enemy tank, shoot at the side armour of one to the side and let you team aim at the one in front of you. That to me is an inadequacy in that is expressly contradicts
the real world approach. Now for a HISTORICAL gamer that can be an issue, for other games I cannot comment as I don't play them. |
| Gamesman6 | 13 Sep 2025 3:23 a.m. PST |
As the 1st responder to your OP I'd already pointed out what i saw and others did later, the issue in the question. But offered ideas that were inadequate personally and we've discussed complexity and more important complication, before. The wider issues which tends to happen here is we all end up discussing out own approaches to gaming. AND there are people here who take Umbridge with almost any post made by some people, even when those people are really posting. Or seemingly the very idea of something "new" or "different" Though let's see now you're back, maybe it'll be fanned back to life… |
| UshCha | 13 Sep 2025 6:36 a.m. PST |
I re-read the thread, well the bits on topic and decided Stoppage's comments very relevant.
- 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 It's about the audience. It's also about historic interest. My passion and the group I game with are interested in the "mechanics" of warfare so all have read extensively accounts of the period and weapons and tactics used. Our rules were commented on early on as "requiring the player to understand what a real platoon commander has to do". Now is that a detrimental comment or not? We took it as a compliment. However for a player in the Just Starting out group may see that as a detrimental comment. It depends on your view of what a wargame is. To me, many of the posters assume a large percentage of players possibly with minimal interest/time to get "into" a period and may also be interested in a historically wide range of technological periods. This restricts study time of a particular period and perhaps limits the comprehensive scope of the rules "too many rules, too little time" especially as the wide range of scenarios may itself be too complex to have time to consider in any depth. Some may also be into the spectacle side of the game, so games like our current, one a route reconnaissance (at the moment) where currently on table and displayed are about 3 vehicles on one side, The rest have remained hidden or have returned to hidden positions. For the protagonists this has been a edge of your seat game as the players decide on how to extract the maximum information for the minimal losses. This effects what is a minimum for a set of rules, the tactical decisions are heavily based on the technology available to both side and cannot easily be reduced to a typical IGOUGO system, and certainly without the uncertainty of hidden units, would be unplayable. However to some perhaps it looks like a game not worth playing anyway. I would agree that to get the best out of our rules you need a reasonable understanding of real world tactics and how to implement them in the system. This will not be achieved in even 2 or 3 games. That may be overcomplex to some but a recognition that less would detract from the scope of the system. The definition it appear of what is complex and what is inadequate may well depend on what you understand a wargame is. As you look harder it gets more difficult metaphoricaly "to see the edge of the wood". |
| goibinu | 14 Sep 2025 2:30 a.m. PST |
Oh my aching sides. This whole thread starts out with the OP calling the way I want to play "inadequate".
Which is consistent with the vast majority of his posts. He considers the way I and a very large number of people play, not only inadequate but inferior. He consistently considers us mentally challenged. He brags about it too. So is it any wonder that I reply hyperbolically?It should also be apparent that I don't particularly care for jargon disguised as brilliant insight. "Hey! Let's invent new words!"
🤔 I get it, I do, and so would any other rational person. What you have to remember is that there's a lot of neurodivergency in this hobby, and when combined with a 'my way or the highway attitude' a happy outcome isn't on the cards. |
| Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2025 4:24 a.m. PST |
"The definition it appear of what is complex and what is inadequate may well depend on what you understand a wargame is. As you look harder it gets more difficult metaphoricaly "to see the edge of the wood"." The upshot being… definiting what does or doesn't work for a person in abroad subjective activity… is persnonal
Luckily we solved that in about a page or less. The rest… 👏🏼🫡🤔🤷 |
| Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2025 4:33 a.m. PST |
Goibinu…
To a degree… though is suspect if we're talking about the spectrum.. he may be to, a "rational" person wouldn't keep engageing with those ND or rather those who are more than the rest of "US" And despite his on going issues with the OP and another commenter or two, he the decided… "It should also be apparent that I don't particularly care for jargon disguised as brilliant insight. "Hey! Let's invent new words!" But again he chose to attack when there was no need and continued to… |
| Wolfhag | 14 Sep 2025 5:15 a.m. PST |
OFM,
This whole thread starts out with the OP calling the way I want to play "inadequate". Inadequate for his game. Also, the way he plays is inadequate for how you play. It goes both ways. So what's your problem other than getting your feelings hurt? Ignore him! So, to this day, I can't take seriously the entire concept of "simulations" regarding WAR GAMES. You're only fooling yourselves, you know. All of a sudden, you are the smartest guy in the room? You are ignoring the definitions of simulation that a civilized society has agreed upon, as found in a dictionary. When everyone makes up their own definitions, it leads to chaos. So, have you appointed yourself the Hall Monitor to ensure people use your definitions and not use jargon? Good luck with that! If jargon confuses you, I advise staying away from military training manuals, after-action accounts, and other historical discussions using acronyms the military is famous for. Every branch of the U.S. military has some type of war game simulation center. Ret. Col. Tim Barrick runs the Marine facility in Quantico. I urge you to contact him with your father's stimulation story and straighten him out about war games not being a simulation. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it. Just don't use my name, we're acquaintances. So far, you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion. You are proving to be a disingenuous waste of time. We don't care about your feelings. At least UshCha is thought-provoking. But don't stop. I'm all for free speech and playing the victim card. It's been somewhat amusing. I'll be magnanimous and let you get in the last word. Wolfhag |
| goibinu | 14 Sep 2025 5:19 a.m. PST |
Gamesman6 I was speaking to John the OFM, not talking about him, but you do you. |
| Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2025 5:24 a.m. PST |
😄 oh I know… and I was was talking to you about John amoung others
I was just pointing out that theres more than one ND person in this discussion. And while I can understand some of tbe issues with the OP John likes to throw stones in many directions. Also be careful lest you get labels for using "jargon" like neuro divergent. But… you do you! 😄😉🫡 |
| Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2025 5:28 a.m. PST |
"I'll be magnanimous and let you get in the last word. Wolfhag" 🫣 careful what you ask for… 😉 |
| Wolfhag | 14 Sep 2025 5:43 a.m. PST |
etotheipi,
We've used the OODA system for naval battleship games. It works well for simulating salvo rates of fire in smaller-scale actions. It should work well for modern naval engagements, too. On July 30, I gave a talk at the US Army War College symposium held at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab. The focus was on combat drone operations and tactics being used in Ukraine. We also did a demo of our analog combat drone operator simulation. It's designed to confront an ISR drone operator with the environmental, electronic warfare, and technical situations he'll run into during a mission. It was not recorded, but I can send you the slide show I used. The player/student chooses a tactic or course of action and implements it so it's more OODA than IGYG. Dana Lombardy (war game designer Hall of Fame member) is helping me. A former Marine SigInt Operator who spent 2 years in Ukraine as a Special Ops Team Leader implementing drone and FO operations has supplied me with the details. He's currently working with the US Marines in Quantico as their Subject Matter Expert on implementing ISR drone operations. We'll be doing a demo for the new Marine LTs at The Basic School in Quantico before the end of the year. I'll PM you the info on the AFV version of the game and what references I've used, including tank drivers/mechanics at major tank museums in the US and Europe I've visited. Thanks,
Wolfhag |
| Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2025 6:17 a.m. PST |
Sounds very interesting, ( all be it laden with abbreviations and jargon 🙊) |
| Wolfhag | 14 Sep 2025 6:31 a.m. PST |
I'll try to get back on topic. Parsing the rate of fire historically has been a complex task. I think attempting to do it using traditional rules increases the complexity because you need more and more rules, exceptions, and die rolls and modifiers. I know, as I tried it and it was too complicated to play. Here is an alternate and less complicated way for AFV warfare: In the previous turn, all vehicles had selected their targets for the next turn. To start the turn, players roll a D20 for each unit shooting. Give a negative modifier for Ace crew and a positive modifier for poor crews. Now start the firing from the lowest number to the highest. As soon a a unit shoots, it immediately selects its target for the next turn. Guns with a high rate of fire (say, 50mm and smaller) get a bonus shot at the end of the turn. Snap Shot: On their first shot at a new target, players can give a negative modifier to shoot earlier, but will have an accuracy penalty when shooting. Buttoned Up: Give a positive modifier. Guns with a slow rate of fire, like 122mm and larger, only shoot every other turn. Units firing their first shot from a concealed ambush position always fire first. This would historically give a turn of about 12-15 seconds. Knowing the length of a turn allows you to use realistic movement rates. Wolfhag |
| etotheipi | 14 Sep 2025 7:04 a.m. PST |
I think attempting to do it using traditional rules increases the complexity because you need more and more rules, exceptions, and die rolls and modifiers. This is the traditional approach to dealing with those factors. I went the other way – aggregating the effects into higher level transfer functions. So, something like:
Pk = Pd x Pt x RoF x Pk/hPk : Probability of Kill
Pd : Probability of Detect
Pt : Probability of Successful Targeting
RoF : Rate of Fire
Pk/h : Probability of Kill per Hit
gets rolled up. Instead of addressing each step with a different roll/table, I figure out what the aggregate distribution looks like and use that. Basically, if there are factors that you don't make decisions about, those functions are subject to aggregation. So, if you are investigating RoF and using a system of blue and red OODA loops to represent it, I would convolute Pd, Pt, and Pk/h into a single distribution and index it by whatever the OODA analysis provides as a RoF value. For a different point of interest, you could aggregate it differently. For my games, I tend to aggregate all those factors, since I tend to focus on high tactical to low operational level player decisions as the drivers. ----- Wolfhag: I think I PMd you, or might have sPaMmed you … I got a lockout error so I tried to sent the PM three times. If you didn't get it, try to PM me and I will respond. |
| UshCha | 14 Sep 2025 11:19 a.m. PST |
Interesting differences between Wolfhag and etotheipi showing there is "more than one way to skin a cat". You could say we use a bit of both with a bit of muddling thrown in. We have a crew quality effect, but it does not directly impact rate of fire (well indirectly in some cases) . The factor called Leadership by us, which is really a mix of Crew Quality, enthusiasm, fear fire and fatigue. However intertwined with that is an element of rate of fire as the command function is of itself capable of effecting rate of fire indirectly in some circumstances. So that is sort of an attempt to integrate various factors without a massive implementation overload (What I would label making the game too complex and over detailed in comparison to the overall design goals). Our rate of fire is about 7 to 15 seconds generalized and standardized. This is done invoking a subroutine of sorts where rapid response is typically what happens. We set the repeats of the subroutine to effective 3 passes based on a comment from a German tanker, the Commander would say to the driver on the third round pull back from the firing position. A bit arbitrary but it aligns well with the other mechanisms and is not wildly implausible in all cases.
Auto loader AFV's tend to have longer reload times when changing natures than manually loaded weapons. Manual and auto load time for the same nature are roughly comparable. We make all reload times the same, again like all simulations compromises are necessary and one man's compromise is another man's inadequate.
In terms of command and control one of the things demonstrated by DBM was that deployment takes a significant time, and collecting together to move out to another location, the reverse could be modelled reasonably. We do not use anything like the DBM system but it prompted us to identify a mechanism that worked for us. To some extent this helps with command and control as the one system does not have to cope to the same extent with such delays. It also makes the "maxim order, counter order results in disorder" applicable, in that changing your mind halfway through adds significant "physical" delays.
Based on converting "classical" wargames scenarios to our own rules, involves changes of timings significantly. Our games typically can last for 10 bounds where many classic games head for more like 6 in the same time. This can be even more noticeable, as the movements in our games, in some circumstances can be much longer, given certain other limitations.
It does beg the question if the classic wargame IGOUGO system is ideal for simulations. Wolfhags innovative approach is one way of getting round the classical wargame limitation. However it can come as a cost, especially for dyed in the wool classical gamers struggle when required to depart from the familiar sequence. It may account for why many much more commercial games stick to the classic sequence regardless, as it has a wider appeal for those wanting new rules without a big overhead of learning fundamentally different sequences. |
| Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2025 11:40 a.m. PST |
I know professional wargamers who run things for military etc, can use IGYG for some things. Yes its simple and can lend itself to certain things. Users are also familiar with it as a concept even even they arent wargamers.
But it does lead to compromises that create the need for further compromises However if we want tk change things(and thats a choice) we need to try different things |
| Wolfhag | 14 Sep 2025 3:56 p.m. PST |
etotheipi,
I got all three. I'll email you my designer notes and some other forms and links to videos. I like the Pk approach. I'm at the individual vehicle/gun and infantry teams for a reinforced company-level engagement, where I like the split-second combat results and the ability for players to trade accuracy for speed. Kicking it up a notch for 3-5 vehicle and gun platoons and squad-sized infantry for a reinforced battalion-sized engagement, I'd use the Pk method with some special rules to determine who shoots first. For hand-held infantry and anti-tank weapons, I reviewed training and combat video footage and manuals to ensure the timing so that it works with direct fire weapons. Every 10 turns is an "Administrative Phase" where I determine communications attempts, rally, smoke dissipation, recovery from bogs, and SNAFUs. etc. It's not playable to time every single action. Infantry firefights are resolved every 10 turns by comparing the volume of fire. No initiative in a sustained firefight, so the exchange of fire is assumed simultaneous. Most firefights are initiated by one side firing first or by an ambush. Squads need to coordinate fire and movement. I'm a Grunt from the VN era, so I want to recreate the same tactics and feel. Thanks,
Wolfhag |
| UshCha | 15 Sep 2025 5:48 a.m. PST |
Wolhag, not thought about it till now but we are both using a form of subroutine. Long time step plus smaller time step, interesting even if the use is somewhat dissimilar. |
| Wolfhag | 16 Sep 2025 5:36 a.m. PST |
UshCha,
At first, I was not sure, but after thinking about it, I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong: The side with fewer units that are left to activate allows his opponent to activate his units one after another until the side with fewer units to activate chooses to interrupt his opponent and activate one of his units. So the side with fewer units to activate (defender?) could (observe) enemy movement while your opponent is activating/attacking, get an idea of his intentions based on his maneuvering (orient), formulate a plan (decide), and then at the right time in a later enemy activation (delay time) interrupt his activations with yours (act) and attack/maneuver against him. The side with more units could activate enough so that at a certain point in the turn, it may have fewer left to activate. I suppose this is how you designate reserves available to have the initiative to counter-attack an enemy attack. Did I get that right? Wolfhag |
| UshCha | 16 Sep 2025 8:13 a.m. PST |
The side with more units could activate enough so that at a certain point in the turn, it may have fewer left to activate. I suppose this is how you designate reserves available to have the initiative to counter-attack an enemy attack. The lower unit side can force activation of the greater side until they have the same number remaining then its alternate. Your option does not occur. Using reserves work because of the High speed movement of vehicles (Transit mode in our rules). They can move fast (20 mph) to a point ideally out of sight of the enemy that lets them deploy quickly but not fight. Especially if they are say in Herringbone formation along a road so they can quickly get on the road or across good going. The route has to be pre programmed at the right command level, but that can be done relatively quickly. Again this is difficult for players steeped in the 6" foot, Faster 12" type rules. Near instant movement (on a typical table) throws them particularly as they can't shoot or fight while doing so. In a one off game with folk with no experience of the rules we had to limit the movement unrealistically. They could not cope with the concept that movement speed placed limits on the ability to fight and could to them cover huge distances. Again particularly folk not steeped in the subject matter. The old adage "You can't please all of the people all of the time" applies. We did divert one prospective player to an alternate group better suited to his approach. If you struggle with what a platoon commander is and what he does, and the overhead of learning this is it's not an aspect you are interested in, then, our rules focused on command structure was not suited too his requirements. He was clearly by his own admission not really interested in simulation, which is fine and the last thing he needs is to be in a group that does not suit his requirements. |
Pages: 1 2 3
|
