"Valid Simulation?" Topic

I hope I never have to play with anyone whose only goal is a "valid simulation".

A lot or most aspects have to be a valid simulation of the subject. Hardly a simulation of all. ANd it should not get in the way of being a good game. Both not depending of the same things.
It has been debated over and over here, explained quite well with patience by Highland Laddie.
If it not a simultion of tactics etc. and warfare relevant to the subject it become a fantasy game.

I'm with Winston on this.

Look at the amount of effort that goes into making simulations of other aspects of the world – economics or climate for example. Vast amounts of money, and they sometimes get it nearly right. Do they count as 'valid simulations'?

Generally simulations model SOME aspects of the real world, and many factors are fudged. So no, simulations really don't have to model ALL aspects to be valid.
But for a game to be playable, there is going to be a lot of fudge.

To my mind, the answer should be "It Depends".

Are you emphasizing the "ER" in "Wargaming",or are you emphasizing the "Game" aspect.

The situation is further difficult inthat there's a big difference between tactical and strategic simulations. Not everything that needs to be accounted for is present in skirmish or tactical games.

You would have to have one heck of a large table to have, say, both sides represented with not just the fighting parts, but the medical,rations, ambulance trains, and so forth. Because the old phrase is still very accurate: "Amatuers discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics."

Using the phrase "all aspects" makes the answer a firm no. If I am wargaming a battle it is assumed all the unseen folks have done their jobs (or not, if that is a consideration). For example, if I am doing Antietam is the game invalid if I didn't do a simulation of blockade runners bringing in Enfield rifles? And the list goes on.

Using the phrase "all aspects" makes the answer a firm no

+1

Using the phrase "all aspects" makes the answer a firm no

+2

Not even professional wargames put on by the military can live up to that standard.

No simulation of anything can model "all" aspects of the real thing.

I'm with Winston on this one.

Not even professional wargames put on by the military can live up to that standard.

Professional military wargames run by militaries (at least all of them that I have worked with) deliberately eschew the idea that you can, or would want to model "everything".

anyone whose only goal is a "valid simulation".

Which leads to the above idea not being a thing. When you build a simulation, your goal is not to build a simulation, your goal is to build a simulation of something. The fact that you identify the something you are simulating (a large part of the military process) means, by definition you are not trying to simulate "everything".

Yes, Let's play Lee in the Gettysburg campaign, wondering were the hundreds of tons of food and water for my animals will come from, or how the water table feel thanks to an influx of thousands of men and there's no water.