Realism & Serious Wargames (long)
Patrick Carroll
They don't let you feel the terror or see the bomb bursts and blood. They give
you a 'helicopter' view of the battlefield and a lot more control and
information than any real-life commander ever had."
Sorry, but I really get tired of hearing this groundless argument.
The theory behind the "serious wargame" is not that it can provide players with
an *experience* equal to that of real-life military commanders. Experience has
nothing to do with it. Rather, the serious wargame tries to provide players
with a mathematical model capable of serving as a dynamic time-and-motion study
of a battle (or campaign, or whatever--we'll call it a battle for simplicity's
sake).
For those who may not know, a time-and-motion study is a form of analysis where
all the motions that comprise a given operation are timed. Such analyses are
often used for improving efficiency. If the study is of making hamburgers in a
fast-food joint, for instance, all the motions involved would be listed
(turning on the grill, greasing it, laying out the patties, flipping them, and
so on); then the motions would be timed with a stopwatch. The analyst, upon
determining which motions take the most time, might then try to figure out
shortcuts--storing the buns closer to the stove, for instance, to save having
to reach over to a cabinet.
A serious wargame, likewise, attempts to capture all the possible motions (or
military maneuvers) that could have occurred in a battle. Further, it takes
other key measurements into consideration--e.g., the effect of firepower at
various ranges, and so forth. From this data, a model is constructed. When
players take control of the model (i.e., play the game), they're experimenting
with various possible combinations of motions, endeavoring to achieve a
combination more efficient, or successful, than the opponent's.
A battle, however, is not as clean an operation as frying burgers. For one
thing, it's a vastly bigger operation, with lots more people involved. Thus,
there are millions of specific motions that could be studied--way too many to
actually measure out. So, another thing the serious wargame does is *abstract*
the data. That is, it takes into consideration only major motions (e.g, the
repositioning of an infantry division), ignoring smaller motions (e.g., Private
Jones stumbling on a rock during the advance).
But not only is a battle bigger, it's also much iffier. Once in a while the
burger flipper might miss the grill, or get sidetracked and let a burger burn;
but most of the time things are going to run pretty much like clockwork. In
battle, that would be nice--but it doesn't often happen. For one thing, you've
always got the enemy trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Then
there are problems like lost orders, cowardice, misinformation, and
disorientation. If the game is going to model a real battle, it has to account
for all these things somehow. But how? Wargame designers have come up with
all kinds of innovations; but mainly such factors are accounted for by dice
rolls. After all the known, clean, predictable motions and features are built
into the game/model, the *unpredictable* factors are accounted for by a throw
of the dice (often accompanied by a chart, which lends a certain "scientific"
scale to the outcomes).
OK, that's the theory behind the serious wargame. That's what a serious
wargame is: A dynamic time-and-motion model of a battle, with a degree of
abstraction to make it manageable, and a chance element to account for what's
unknown or unpredictable.
When two people sit down to play a serious wargame, they're assuming the role
of amateur military-history analysts. They're going to work with this model,
experimenting with motion combinations of their own choice, and take note of
the effects. And if the model has been painstakingly constructed, anything
that happens in the game will explicitly reflect what *could* have happened in
the historical battle--physically, anyhow. Because that's all a
time-and-motion model can do--demonstrate *physical* possibilities. Command
control, intelligence, morale, and other dimensions of warfare are beyond the
scope of such a model--beyond the potential of a serious, scientific board
wargame.
To reiterate, the serious wargame does *not* attempt to capture the
*experience* of battle or of military command; it only attempts to make a
dynamic time-and-motion study of battle, showing the probable effects of
various physical actions/motions.
By now, the critical reader is thinking of a long list of actual "serious
wargames" that do *not* fit the pattern I've described above. What about the
card-based command-control system of Up Front, which attempts to capture the
spirit of squad-level butt-kicking? Or the "administration point" system of
some Kevin Zucker designs, which combines command-control with logistics &
other factors? Or the first-person vantage point of some games (e.g., Patton's
Best)? Or the morale rules of ASL? Evidently many wargames do try to capture
something of the experience of battle, or the experience of command. In fact,
the more recent releases tend to go to great lengths to achieve a "commander's
seat" point of view. And even the oldest Avalon Hill catalogs advertised that
"YOU are in command."
Well, that's all true. But in my opinion, those are primarily marketing
compromises. A "pure" serious wargame would seem dry and boring to most buyers
and game players. So the designer/publisher has to do something to reach
buyers' emotions, not just their intellect. Hardly anybody is going to get
very enthused about how accurate a time-and-motion study Game X is; but lots of
people might get excited if Game X strikes their imagination and makes them
feel (to a tolerable extent, and in a comfortable, exciting way) like they're
really there, refighting a famous battle.
And yes, the whole time-and-motion-study concept is limited. As some people
never tire of pointing out, there's a lot more to military command than armed
units moving about and clashing with one another. Command control, morale,
limited intelligence, and many other factors come into play as well--making the
traditional "serious wargame" sadly one-dimensional. Military buffs who are
interested in the other dimensions are disappointed; they want more. But
adding more--especially new dimensions--to an already very complicated game
would be time-prohibitive. Suddenly it's a computer game, or it's unplayable.
Furthermore, these other dimensions don't lend themselves to nice, neat
measurement or timing; getting a handle on them is more intuitive than
rational/deductive.
Thus the reason that some designers have moved away from the
time-and-motion-study model, and turned to a looser, more creative, artistic
presentation of battle in game form. They no longer make any serious effort to
measure out all the possible motions and activities of a battle; instead
they're content to just suggest the broad lines of motion, while incorporating
other key elements and dimensions as well. And above all, they're intent on
presenting the whole shebang in a fast-moving, enjoyable board-game format.
There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying there is. I'm just saying
that originally there was something truly scientific about the serious wargame:
it was basically a dynamic time-and-motion model of battle, which could be
used for experimentation and study as well as fun. And in games like Battle
Cry, the "science" has faded so far into the background that the wargame is no
longer serious. Such wargames are just like any other games: works of art,
intended for competitive social enjoyment & interaction.
That's great for today's thirteen-year-olds. But it's kinda hard on somebody
like me, who has spent a few decades playing ever more complicated wargames and
also studying military history. I still want the wargames I play to
accurately (even if superficially) model the historical battles I read about.
Of course, having read a fair amount of military history, I realize command is
at least as much an art as a science. But when it comes to playing a serious
wargame, I don't care about that. I'm not looking to the game to model the
experience of command in the first place; I just want it to be a reliable
time-and-motion study of the battle, so that I can experiment with it and maybe
gain some insights into how the historical battle unfolded, and how it *could*
have unfolded instead, had different directions been taken.
But if I'm playing a newfangled game like Battle Cry, I can't rely on the
time-and-motion model. It's too artsy and gamey a design. If I want to
associate it with military history at all, I can do so only by trusting the
designer's knowledge, intuition, and creativity. I have to say, "Well, Mr.
Borg is presenting me with these supposedly good-but-stylized portrayals of
Civil War battles; and only he (if anybody) knows what all has been thrown into
the 'design pot'; so I guess I'll just have to give him the benefit of the
doubt, take the scenarios as they are, suspend my disbelief, and enjoy playing
the game."
In essence, I have to enjoy games like Battle Cry the way I enjoy reading
historical fiction. In contrast, when I play serious wargames (of the
time-and-motion-study variety), I can enjoy them more the way I enjoy reading
historical nonfiction. Battle Cry provides the kind of colorful look at the
battle of Gettysburg that the novel "Killer Angels" affords. Gettysburg '77,
OTOH, shows me the actual layout and movements of the battle, just as I'd read
about them in the Official Records or see them in the West Point Atlas. With
Gettysburg '77 I could, if I wanted to, re-create the battle move by move; and
I can also experiment with viable alternative moves. With Battle Cry, I can't.
Battle Cry *may* come closer to giving me a taste of what Civil War command was
like; I don't know. But that's not what I've ever wanted or expected from a
wargame in the first place. And if the price is sacrificing the accuracy of
the time-and-motion study, then to me it's too high a price to pay. Once that
sacrifice is made, as far as I'm concerned I may just as well be playing
Settlers of Catan, or pinochle; because it's no longer a wargame to me anymore,
it's just a game.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
David Vander Ark
managed to make it about a third of the way in when I realized your
latest rant just wasn't worth responding to in detail.
Suffice it to say that I can very easily use your definition of a
serious wargame as a "time and motion study" and define Battle Cry as a
"serious wargame." Using your own defintion. In fact, you can use your
definition and almost define Chopper Strike as a "serious wargame."
So I would suggest that you use a different definition of a "serious
wargame." Perhaps the best definition of a "serious wargame" is like
that of the judge who said of pornography that he couldn't define it but
he knew what it was when he saw it.
Accept the fact that Battle Cry is a DIFFERENT kind of wargame than what
you expected. Accept the fact the MANY people play wargames for reasons
other than wanting to assume the role of amateur military history
analysts. I'd rather slit my wrists with a rusty fork than assume the
role of an amateur military history analyst in my free time. And I
enjoy playing what I think are "serious wargames" when I have the time.
Any time you label one type of game "serious" you are at the same time
calling another type of game "non-serious" and this suggests a level of
elitist snobbism that I find objectionable. i.e. you are only a REAL
gamer if you play Advanced Third Settlers of El Grande, second edition,
with the Sackson variant implemented and use only the original Espirantu
cardset.
Come up with a different title for "serious" wargame. Come up with a
tighter definition for what you are trying to describe/define. Or
don't. Like you said, it's an old, tired argument.
Feel free to cry that your style of wargame is harder to find on the
market. Or is it? Or does it even matter? Play what you have on the
shelf and pat yourself on the back for being a "serious wargamer."
David
Patrick Carroll
>managed to make it about a third of the way in when I realized your
>latest rant just wasn't worth responding to in detail.
Either you were so intent on refuting my post that you missed my point
entirely, or else I'm the one who's completely lost.
Since my lengthy post apparently confused you, I'll give you a short version of
what I was saying:
It is inappropriate, invalid, and untrue to say that Wargame X is *unrealistic*
just because it's short on command-control mechanisms or because it fails to
re-create all the blood, guts, and terror of an actual battlefield.
That's it. That's basically all I was saying. I went on to explain *why* I
think such remarks are inappropriate, invalid, and untrue; but the above was my
point.
The portion of my post that you complain about was merely my attempt to spell
out how a wargame can be one-dimensional and yet be plenty realistic to me.
>So I would suggest that you use a different definition of a "serious
>wargame."
I don't recall *defining* it at all. I merely spelled out which aspects of a
serious wargame, in my view, merit focus.
>Accept the fact that Battle Cry is a DIFFERENT kind of wargame than what
>you expected.
But it isn't. It's just about what I expected it would be. I can't accept a
"fact" like that when I know it's not true.
>Accept the fact the MANY people play wargames for reasons
>other than wanting to assume the role of amateur military history
>analysts.
So what? Was my post covering MANY people's taste in games? I don't think so.
It simply spelled out what it is that makes me take a wargame seriously.
Oh, I'm sorry. Was I required to cover *everybody's* preferences in my post?
I didn't know about that rule. I thought I was free to just express my own
personal views. Pardon my faux pas.
>Any time you label one type of game "serious" you are at the same time
>calling another type of game "non-serious" and this suggests a level of
>elitist snobbism that I find objectionable.
And when somebody scowls and says, "I'm positive that Stratego is the most
realistic wargame in the world; anybody got a problem with that?" . . . well,
I've got a problem with it. I don't care if somebody personally holds such a
screwball notion, but I do resent it when they flash it in my face with such a
contentious look and belligerent remark.
I myself have never had much of a problem with "elitism." F'rinstance it's
easy for me to believe that musically, Beethoven is in a whole 'nuther league
from the Backstreet Boys. But still, I can understand how others might resent
"elitism"; and I respect that.
What I do resent is the opposite brand of snobbery: arrogant
egalitarianism--the contention that by God *everything* is equally good, and
anyone who disagrees is an elitist pig.
Takes one to know one.
> i.e. you are only a REAL
>gamer if you play Advanced Third Settlers of El Grande, second edition,
>with the Sackson variant implemented and use only the original Espirantu
>cardset.
Guess that's what they call a "straw man."
>Come up with a different title for "serious" wargame.
Why? I'm talking about serious wargames. What reason would I have for calling
them something else? Just to pander to the overly sensitive? Has political
correctness gone so far that we can no longer even call something what it is?
>Come up with a
>tighter definition for what you are trying to describe/define.
Next you'll be asking me to perform the twelve labors of Hercules. If that
last long post didn't finally make it pretty clear what I'm talking about,
there's not a ray of hope that you'll ever get it. I bent over as far backward
as I possibly could to describe what I was looking at in wargames.
>Or
>don't. Like you said, it's an old, tired argument.
Yes--but not the argument you're cramming down my throat. Show me where I said
my kind of wargame is good and yours is bad. On the contrary, I specifically
said at one point, "There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying there
is."
>Feel free to cry that your style of wargame is harder to find on the
>market. Or is it? Or does it even matter? Play what you have on the
>shelf and pat yourself on the back for being a "serious wargamer."
You're hallucinating again, David. Evidently you read something you didn't
like in one of my posts from a couple years ago, overreacted to it, and are now
unable to read anything I'm writing today. I can't for the life of me see how
your remarks above have anything to do with the post you're responding to.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
David Vander Ark
sounding a lot more hostile than I intended. For that I apologize.
Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> "Aw, lighten up. Traditional 'serious wargames' aren't very realistic either.
> They don't let you feel the terror or see the bomb bursts and blood. They give
> you a 'helicopter' view of the battlefield and a lot more control and
> information than any real-life commander ever had."
>
> Sorry, but I really get tired of hearing this groundless argument.
>
From this intro I infer that you are intending to construct a working
definition of a a "serious wargame."
> The theory behind the "serious wargame" is not that it can provide players with
> an *experience* equal to that of real-life military commanders. Experience has
> nothing to do with it.
Sure enough, here's the groundwork of your definition...
Rather, the serious wargame tries to provide players
> with a mathematical model capable of serving as a dynamic time-and-motion study
> of a battle (or campaign, or whatever--we'll call it a battle for simplicity's
> sake).
>
You base your working definition on a scientific body of knowlege...
> For those who may not know, a time-and-motion study is a form of analysis where
> all the motions that comprise a given operation are timed. Such analyses are
> often used for improving efficiency. If the study is of making hamburgers in a
> fast-food joint, for instance, all the motions involved would be listed
> (turning on the grill, greasing it, laying out the patties, flipping them, and
> so on); then the motions would be timed with a stopwatch. The analyst, upon
> determining which motions take the most time, might then try to figure out
> shortcuts--storing the buns closer to the stove, for instance, to save having
> to reach over to a cabinet.
>
Back to constructing a working definition...
> A serious wargame, likewise, attempts to capture all the possible motions (or
> military maneuvers) that could have occurred in a battle. Further, it takes
> other key measurements into consideration--e.g., the effect of firepower at
> various ranges, and so forth. From this data, a model is constructed. When
> players take control of the model (i.e., play the game), they're experimenting
> with various possible combinations of motions, endeavoring to achieve a
> combination more efficient, or successful, than the opponent's.
From this paragraph I inferred that you had constructed a working
definition of a "serious" wargame. I then inferred that you had at the
same time created a framework by which you would be able to evaluate a
wargame as "serious" or not...unserious? (Hence my rhetoric in the
first response).
Here's what I thought your definition was:
A serious wargame attmepts to capture all the possible military
maneuvers that could have occurred in a battle. Further, the serious
wargame takes other key variables into consideration, including but not
limited to the effect of firepower at various ranges, etc. A serious
wargame is a model synthesizing the possible military maneuvers and the
other variables which allows the participants to experiment with various
combinations of maneuvers, timing, etc., in an attempt to most
efficiently solve the problems posed by the historical (or ahistorical)
milieu of the battle (field).
In my post I stated that I believe Battle Cry meets the above criteria,
therefore it can be considered a serious wargame by this definition. I
see now that this was a definition that I ASSUMED you were working from,
and, ASSUMING that you had a bias against Battle Cry (based on your
other publicly posted laments) I was trying to point out that your
definition was not sufficiently refined.
>
> A battle, however, is not as clean an operation as frying burgers. For one
> thing, it's a vastly bigger operation, with lots more people involved. Thus,
> there are millions of specific motions that could be studied--way too many to
> actually measure out. So, another thing the serious wargame does is *abstract*
> the data. That is, it takes into consideration only major motions (e.g, the
> repositioning of an infantry division), ignoring smaller motions (e.g., Private
> Jones stumbling on a rock during the advance).
>
> But not only is a battle bigger, it's also much iffier. Once in a while the
> burger flipper might miss the grill, or get sidetracked and let a burger burn;
> but most of the time things are going to run pretty much like clockwork. In
> battle, that would be nice--but it doesn't often happen. For one thing, you've
> always got the enemy trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Then
> there are problems like lost orders, cowardice, misinformation, and
> disorientation. If the game is going to model a real battle, it has to account
> for all these things somehow. But how? Wargame designers have come up with
> all kinds of innovations; but mainly such factors are accounted for by dice
> rolls. After all the known, clean, predictable motions and features are built
> into the game/model, the *unpredictable* factors are accounted for by a throw
> of the dice (often accompanied by a chart, which lends a certain "scientific"
> scale to the outcomes).
>
> OK, that's the theory behind the serious wargame. That's what a serious
> wargame is: A dynamic time-and-motion model of a battle, with a degree of
> abstraction to make it manageable, and a chance element to account for what's
> unknown or unpredictable.
>
See, you seem to have created a working definition. My point, while
inelegantly stated, was that your working definition was not discrete
enough to encapsulate JUST serious wargames. Chopper Strike fits this
definition.
> When two people sit down to play a serious wargame, they're assuming the role
> of amateur military-history analysts. They're going to work with this model,
> experimenting with motion combinations of their own choice, and take note of
> the effects. And if the model has been painstakingly constructed, anything
> that happens in the game will explicitly reflect what *could* have happened in
> the historical battle--physically, anyhow. Because that's all a
> time-and-motion model can do--demonstrate *physical* possibilities. Command
> control, intelligence, morale, and other dimensions of warfare are beyond the
> scope of such a model--beyond the potential of a serious, scientific board
> wargame.
>
And here is where I stated that I would rather play a wargame for fun,
whether it meets anybody's definition of serious or not. I'd rather not
use my limited leisure time to become an amateur military history
analyst...but if that's what motivates some wargamers, fine.
> To reiterate, the serious wargame does *not* attempt to capture the
> *experience* of battle or of military command; it only attempts to make a
> dynamic time-and-motion study of battle, showing the probable effects of
> various physical actions/motions.
>
When I read the above piece of the definition I am struck by how many
games fit. If you take the wargame piece out of it, just about any game
could be distilled down to a time and motion study. Thinly pasted on
theme or not.
> By now, the critical reader is thinking of a long list of actual "serious
> wargames" that do *not* fit the pattern I've described above. What about the
> card-based command-control system of Up Front, which attempts to capture the
> spirit of squad-level butt-kicking? Or the "administration point" system of
> some Kevin Zucker designs, which combines command-control with logistics &
> other factors? Or the first-person vantage point of some games (e.g., Patton's
> Best)? Or the morale rules of ASL? Evidently many wargames do try to capture
> something of the experience of battle, or the experience of command. In fact,
> the more recent releases tend to go to great lengths to achieve a "commander's
> seat" point of view. And even the oldest Avalon Hill catalogs advertised that
> "YOU are in command."
You are describing chrome. If somebody feels that they want to immerse
themself in the experience of a battle, they will opt for a chrome-heavy
game. If they have limited time to play a game but are interested in
the historical theme, they may instead opt for a game with less chrome.
At this point I felt like you were implying that a "serious wargamer"
would reject any game but the "best" one out there. Hence my
intentional straw man point about elitism/snobbishness, etc.
And aboout here is where the length of your post overwhelmed me, I
started hallucinating as you so nicely put it (that is tongue in cheek,
I took no offense!), and I just whittled my reply down to some poorly
organized comments and hit the send button.
I actually intended to try to seriously discuss the topic. I found that
I was unable to because I felt your definition was overly broad. Sorry
for not clearly saying that and just shutting up.
David
Patrick Carroll
>sounding a lot more hostile than I intended. For that I apologize.
OK, we can start over.
>Patrick wrote:
>>
>>. . . Traditional 'serious wargames' aren't very realistic
>either. . . .
>> Sorry, but I really get tired of hearing this groundless argument.
>>
David:
>From this intro I infer that you are intending to construct a working
>definition of a a "serious wargame."
Well, I hadn't thought of it that way. I thought I was just going to refute
the "groundless argument" by explaining that some of us old-time "serious
wargamers" (and I meant that term in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, since
outside the military there's never anything all that serious about wargaming)
weren't looking for a command model in the first place.
>> The theory behind the "serious wargame" is not that it can provide players
>with
>> an *experience* equal to that of real-life military commanders. Experience
>has
>> nothing to do with it.
>
>Sure enough, here's the groundwork of your definition...
From my POV, I was just inviting the reader to look at wargames from a
different perspective--where the experience of battlefield command has nothing
to do with what the game is about.
>Rather, the serious wargame tries to provide players
>> with a mathematical model capable of serving as a dynamic time-and-motion
>study
>> of a battle (or campaign, or whatever--we'll call it a battle for
>simplicity's
>> sake).
>>
>
>You base your working definition on a scientific body of knowlege...
I could've skipped the term "serious wargame" here, and probably forestalled a
lot of friction. What I meant was that a certain subclass of wargames has been
designed on this "scientific" basis, which met the need of a certain group of
wargamers.
The Avalon Hill General, quite a few years back, carried a then-famous
design-philosophy debate between the designer of Squad Leader and the designer
of Tobruk. I missed that debate, but I've seen snippets of it and caught the
drift. Basically, the SL designer (John Hill) argued in favor of an
"impressionistic" portrayal of battlefield events, while the Tobruk designer
(whose name I've forgotten) said that a true-to-life wargame demanded precise
measurements and a scientific basis.
Popular support went to SL, which evolved into ASL. But in hindsight, I think
the Tobruk designer had a very good point.
Later, there would be debates centering on the lack of command-control rules in
SL/ASL. More wargames had begun to include a command-control dimension, and it
became more and more obvious that SL/ASL lacked that for the most part. Gamers
who wanted SL/ASL to portray the *experience* of battlefield command were
disappointed.
My point (getting back to our discussion) was that when SL first came out,
hardly anyone was much concerned with the experience of battlefield command
anyway. Many wargamers (like the Tobruk designer) were more concerned with the
physical dimension of the simulation--with the scientific basis, or the
time-and-motion study. And some of us still are.
<snip>
>> A serious wargame, likewise, attempts to capture all the possible motions
>(or
>> military maneuvers) that could have occurred in a battle. Further, it
>takes
>> other key measurements into consideration--e.g., the effect of firepower at
>> various ranges, and so forth. . . .
>From this paragraph I inferred that you had constructed a working
>definition of a "serious" wargame. I then inferred that you had at the
>same time created a framework by which you would be able to evaluate a
>wargame as "serious" or not...unserious? (Hence my rhetoric in the
>first response).
OK, I can now see how you might have taken it that way. Sorry I overreacted.
Without saying so, I was alluding to my recent Battle Cry posts, where I tried
to distinguish between two genres, or classes, of wargame: (1) the "serious
wargame"--Gettysburg '77, Stonewall Jackson's Way, the Gamers brigade series,
and so forth; and (2) the "light wargame" (I didn't actually name this
category, but I'll coin this term now)--Axis & Allies, Risk, Battle Cry, etc.
If there's an objection to the arbitrary term "serious wargame," I'd be
perfectly happy to replace it with "heavy wargame," "unwieldy wargame," "boring
wargame," or anything else. I just needed some handle for this category I was
trying to describe, and "serious wargame" was the first thing that crossed my
mind. How 'bout "scientific wargame"?
>Here's what I thought your definition was:
>A serious wargame attmepts to capture all the possible military
>maneuvers that could have occurred in a battle. Further, the serious
>wargame takes other key variables into consideration, including but not
>limited to the effect of firepower at various ranges, etc. A serious
>wargame is a model synthesizing the possible military maneuvers and the
>other variables which allows the participants to experiment with various
>combinations of maneuvers, timing, etc., in an attempt to most
>efficiently solve the problems posed by the historical (or ahistorical)
>milieu of the battle (field).
That's close, but it glosses over some of my main points. I'll recopy the
above paragraph below, and cover your remarks point by point for clarity:
>A serious wargame attempts to capture all the possible military
>maneuvers that could have occurred in a battle. . . .
Actually, it *measures* and *times* specific military movements, reducing all
battlefield events to mathematical terms.
>Further, the serious
>wargame takes other key variables into consideration, including but not
>limited to the effect of firepower at various ranges, etc.
Yes, but it measures and times those key factors as well, reducing them to
precise mathematical terms. (As to the "variables," they're taken into effect
later, via probability charts and finally dice rolls.)
>A serious
>wargame is a model synthesizing the possible military maneuvers and the
>other variables . . .
Sort of. But I'd put less emphasis on the word "synthesizing." Rather, it
portrays the maneuvers and actions *explicitly* (though in a mathematical, not
experiential, way). "Synthesizing" calls to mind John Hill's "impressionistic"
design of Squad Leader--which is *not* what I'm talking about.
> . . . which allows the participants to experiment with various
>combinations of maneuvers, timing, etc., in an attempt to most
>efficiently solve the problems posed by the historical (or ahistorical)
>milieu of the battle (field).
Yes. But I'd specify *physical* combinations and *physical* problems. Because
some wargames attempt to go beyond the measurable physical dimension and
explicitly factor in such nonphysical factors as command-control,
misinformation, limited intelligence, heat of battle, and so forth--which is
*not* part of the "scientific wargame" (or "serious wargame") I'm describing.
>In my post I stated that I believe Battle Cry meets the above criteria,
>therefore it can be considered a serious wargame by this definition. . . .
Perhaps it could, by *your* definition. But by mine (as spelled out above),
the movement rates, ranges, topography, and other measurable physical factors
are *not* given explicitly in BC. Therefore BC is not a "scientific wargame."
Rather, it's an impressionistic wargame of the John Hill variety, enhanced by
command-control developments, and then lightened up for the mass-market Axis &
Allies crowd.
<snip>
>> OK, that's the theory behind the serious wargame. That's what a serious
>> wargame is: A dynamic time-and-motion model of a battle, with a degree of
>> abstraction to make it manageable, and a chance element to account for
>what's
>> unknown or unpredictable.
>>
>
>See, you seem to have created a working definition. My point, while
>inelegantly stated, was that your working definition was not discrete
>enough to encapsulate JUST serious wargames. Chopper Strike fits this
>definition.
I'm not familiar with Chopper Strike. But I'll once again admit that "serious
wargame" might have been a poor choice of terms.
I'll also mention that although my subject here is the "scientific wargame"--a
variety which is based on discrete measurements and such--my post is anything
but scientific or exact. I'm more of an "impressionistic" writer. I'm not
trying to lay down any exact laws or strict divisions; I'm just asking the
reader to shift position for a few moments and look at one aspect of the
history of wargames which might shed some light on his views of wargaming in
general.
My worry is that young people for whom Battle Cry is a first look at wargaming
might regard it as the norm and wonder why veteran wargamers sometimes look
down their noses at it. I was trying to explain one of the reasons why that
might be. Basically, I was just saying to newbies, "Y'know, there's a whole
'nuther kind of wargame out there. And some of those other wargames are based
on a whole different design philosophy."
>> When two people sit down to play a serious wargame, they're assuming the
>role
>> of amateur military-history analysts. They're going to work with this
>model,
>> experimenting with motion combinations of their own choice. . . .
>
>And here is where I stated that I would rather play a wargame for fun,
>whether it meets anybody's definition of serious or not. I'd rather not
>use my limited leisure time to become an amateur military history
>analyst...but if that's what motivates some wargamers, fine.
No problem there. To each his own. I'm not saying the "serious wargame" (or
"scientific wargame" or whatever we're calling it now) is any *better* than
other kinds. I most certainly wouldn't claim it's more *fun.*
>> To reiterate, the serious wargame does *not* attempt to capture the
>> *experience* of battle or of military command; it only attempts to make a
>> dynamic time-and-motion study of battle, showing the probable effects of
>> various physical actions/motions.
>>
>
>When I read the above piece of the definition I am struck by how many
>games fit. If you take the wargame piece out of it, just about any game
>could be distilled down to a time and motion study. Thinly pasted on
>theme or not.
If you go back to my criticism of your version of my definition, you may
reconsider this. Monopoly is clearly not an *explicit* time-and-motion study
of the real-estate business. Settlers of Catan didn't start out with precise
measurements of the island or detailed calculations of population growth rates,
resource replenishment, and so on. But the "scientific wargame" does start out
with a precise map of a battlefield and detailed measurements of movement
rates, ranges, and other pertinent factors. Those precisely measured and
explicitly portrayed elements comprise the basis of such a game.
There are non-wargames that also do this. Auto racing games and such. Computer
flight sims also come to mind. But I'm just talking about wargames--and the
way Axis & Allies is in a different category of wargame than Third Reich/Rising
Sun. The latter starts out with historical measurements and endeavors to
remain true to them even (if necessary) at the expense of fun & playability.
A&A, OTOH, emphasizes the fun & playability, sacrificing "historical
measurements" (when necessary) to achieve it.
>> . . . What about
>the
>> card-based command-control system of Up Front, which attempts to capture
>the
>> spirit of squad-level butt-kicking? Or the "administration point" system
>of
>> some Kevin Zucker designs, which combines command-control with logistics &
>> other factors? Or the first-person vantage point of some games (e.g.,
>Patton's
>> Best)? Or the morale rules of ASL? Evidently many wargames do try to
>capture
>> something of the experience of battle, or the experience of command. In
>fact,
>> the more recent releases tend to go to great lengths to achieve a
>"commander's
>> seat" point of view. And even the oldest Avalon Hill catalogs advertised
>that
>> "YOU are in command."
>You are describing chrome.
I am? I've read the jargon word "chrome" many times over the years in
connection with wargaming; and to me it means something quite different.
"Chrome" is a term used by designers to refer to any unnecessary but
emotionally gratifying frills layered on to the basic game mechanism. In
Settlers, for instance, the whole island-settlement theme can be called chrome;
the game would work just as well if the theme changed to the growth of cancer
in a set of biological cells--or if it had no theme at all.
Most of the examples I gave above (all except the "YOU are in command" hype)
are not chrome at all; they're inherent parts of the basic game mechanism.
I can see why you might regard these features as mere chrome--since you have
such a vastly different view of what wargames are or ought to be. But from my
"serious wargames" POV, Up Front exists primarily (and almost solely) to
portray ultra-tactical WWII combat; Zucker's Napoleonic games exist primarily
to portray the historical realities of warfare in that era; Patton's Best
exists to give players some first-person sense of what tank command was like;
ASL exists to illustrate WWII tactical combat; and so on. The primary,
fundamental purpose of these "games" is NOT the same as that of games like
Settlers, Risk, or Clue; nor is it the same as that of games like chess, poker,
or pinochle.
And that is precisely my whole point: that there are different categories of
games. Some games (e.g., chess) are mainly for mental exercise & competition;
some (e.g., Axis & Allies) are mainly for competitive fun; and some (e.g.,
Tobruk) are for illustrating military-history events in game form.
The way I read you, David, you seem to share the other David (des Jardins)'s
view that no, there are not different categories of games. Games are just
games; and players are free to enjoy or experience them any way they want to.
In other words, despite all the "chrome," ASL is *not* primarily a "portrayal
in game form" of WWII tactical combat; rather it's just a game like chess or
anything else--and it happens to have a bunch of military "chrome" layered onto
its basic mechanism.
I have to disagree with that. To me it's clear that some wargames are designed
with the principal intent of simulating, or portraying, actual military events.
The carefully measured and explicity presented elements (unit type, movement
rates, ranges, firepower effectiveness, etc.) are the whole raison d'etre of
such games; and the underlying game mechanism is, in effect, the "chrome" of
such games. Because the game mechanism is almost an afterthought. The
designer, after compiling all his military-history data, then says to himself,
"OK, now I guess I've got to organize this into game form--so I suppose I'll
have to apply some sort of game mechanism to it to bring the whole thing to
life."
And of course, there's an audience for such games. An audience comprised of
military-history buffs who are mainly interested in the unit composition,
movement rates, firepower effects, battlefield topography, and other features.
For this type of wargamer, the underlying game mechanism can be almost
irrelevant.
This group of wargamers (which I've been calling "serious wargamers") can shrug
off ASL's artificial 8-phase sequence of play as a "necessary evil" which makes
the battlefield simulation work. But if a .50 caliber machine-gun was
effective at 700 meters, and the game allows it to be effective at only 500
meters, the "serious wargamer" will likely regard that as an unforgiveable
design flaw. To the serious wargamer, such things are not "chrome" at all!
They're the main features of the game.
>If somebody feels that they want to immerse
>themself in the experience of a battle, they will opt for a chrome-heavy
>game. If they have limited time to play a game but are interested in
>the historical theme, they may instead opt for a game with less chrome.
This, to me, shows your bias also. You persist in dismissing as "chrome" what
the "serious wargamer" regards as the whole reason for playing such games.
I'd express your remarks above differently: If somebody is genuinely interested
in the military-history events covered by the game, he'll choose a game that
focuses on those events and explicitly details all the factors that comprised
those events; and in the process, he'll reluctantly tolerate an underlying,
artificial game mechanism. But if somebody just wants a good, fast-moving game
of reasonable length--and maybe has a passing interest in the game's
theme--he'll opt for a game with a wonderful underlying game mechanism; and in
the process, he'll shrug off any inexactness in the thematic "chrome."
>At this point I felt like you were implying that a "serious wargamer"
>would reject any game but the "best" one out there. Hence my
>intentional straw man point about elitism/snobbishness, etc.
Well, as I hope you can now see, I was just implying that there are different
categories and purposes of wargames and wargamers. A wargame which is heavy on
game mechanism and light on the military-history details is unlikely to satisfy
a "serious wargamer." Likewise, a "serious wargame" is apt to seem boring and
complicated to a "light wargamer."
Sorry about the misunderstandings. Hope I've been able to clear up a few
things here (and maybe even pave the way for further discussion).
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>
>I am? I've read the jargon word "chrome" many times over the years in
>connection with wargaming; and to me it means something quite different.
Correction: In my original post, I *was* describing chrome in the quoted
passage.
Still, the above was a good springboard for further explaining my point about
how a "scientific wargame" differs from an "impressionistic wargame."
--P. C.,
Minnesota
John Hwang
> The theory behind the "serious wargame" is not that it can provide
> commanders. Experience has othing to do with it. Rather, the
> serious wargame tries to provide players ith a mathematical model
> capable of serving as a dynamic time-and-motion study of a
> battle (or campaign, or whatever--we'll call it a battle for
> simplicity's sake).
[SNIP!]
> Battle Cry *may* come closer to giving me a taste of what Civil War
> command was like; I don't know. But that's not what I've ever
> wanted or expected from a wargame in the first place. And if the
> price is sacrificing the accuracy of the time-and-motion study, then
> to me it's too high a price to pay. Once that sacrifice is made,
> as far as I'm concerned I may just as well be playing Settlers of
> Catan, or pinochle; because it's no longer a wargame to me anymore,
> it's just a game.
This is all well and good. But here's the thing: it isn't any fun.
And if it isn't any fun, it's not a "game" by anybody's measure. It's
merely a simulation, of whatever level of accuracy and abstraction.
But no more than that. And in that case, it's just as well to simply
read the Military History books and look at the diagrams to be done
with it.
Because let's face it. The more "accurate" the historical scenario,
the less room there is for experimentation or variation from the
historical outcome, short of a major screw-up by either the historical
commander (which, btw, can be placed into the model), or the player
commanding in his stead.
So the whole thing really becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you
don't" Catch-22 type thing. Slavishly accurate and historical, which
means we get the essentailly the same result every time, with
relatively little variation. Or else abstracted and re-balanced, with
corresponding less historical mimicry. But to expect a truly accurate
and historical game to *also* provide the kind of variety and
unpredictability that would make it truly "fun" is asking a bit much.
The best one can hope for is to pick a historical "jumping-off" point
at which the forces are roughly evenly balanced and throw history to
the winds afterwards. Because once the historical flow has been
broken, it's rather difficult to bring it back.
Personally, I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied here.
Which is too bad. Because a lot of these games actually are quite fun
to play.
--
--- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Hwang
> OK, I can now see how you might have taken it that way. Sorry I
> overreacted. Without saying so, I was alluding to my recent
> Battle Cry posts, where I tried to distinguish between two genres,
> or classes, of wargame: (1) the "serious wargame"--Gettysburg '77,
> Stonewall Jackson's Way, the Gamers brigade series, and so forth;
I'm not sure, but I think "historical" might be a better adjective
here.
> and (2) the "light wargame" (I didn't actually name this category,
> but I'll coin this term now)--Axis & Allies, Risk, Battle Cry, etc.
I'd posit "family" or "party" as the descriptor here, tho I'm not sure
BC is a good choice for this. From what I've read of BC, It's much
closer in flavor to SL/ASL and similar games.
> How 'bout "scientific wargame"?
This isn't bad and serves well to distinguish beween BC and ASL.
Question: where would you place miniatures wargames like Warhammer
(Fantasy, Ancients, and Sci-Fi) and it's brethren??? Far more tactical
and strategic than the party games, but utterly lacking in scientific
basis, and clearly fictional rather than historical.
From my POV, the easiest way to discriminate between "serious" and "non-
serious" wargames is to simply count the number of pages of rules
across all volumes and supplements. If the count is under 30, it's non-
serious. If it's over 100, it's serious. If it's in-between, check
the typeface... :)
Because I don't care what you want to argue -- Star Fleet Battles is a
*serious* wargame. It's fictional, it's non-scientific, but it's got a
rules-set to make any man cry.
David Vander Ark
I would further clarify what I said before. I have snipped the bulk of
the multiple levels of posts away, and believe we are pretty much in
agreement on most of what you said originally.
You are more clear in the reply to my second post as to the scientific
nature of the games you are talking about.
I own Tobruk, but never managed to get through the rule book and
actually play it. The rules were just too complex. However, as a work
of serious historical study, the game is clearly exhaustively researched
and historically accurate. (Especially compared to Afrika Korps). In
fact, these two games are probably good representatives of the different
categories of wargames you are trying to describe...though Afrika Korps
likely represents more of a serious wargame than Battle Cry.
As far as trying to name the class of wargame you are trying to
describe, it probably is not possible. See the "Help Alan Moon" thread
for an example of how difficult it is to construct a name that works for
everybody. Serious Wargame, Scientific Wargame, whatever. I think
Scientific is a little better in that it sounds less like the "other"
types of games are inferior.
I understand where you are coming from with respect to Battle Cry, and I
can see your point that it isn't serious. Comparing my Civil War
Battlefields book and the Battle Cry scenario maps "proves" your point
about accuracy.
You are correct that there is the potential that a newbie playing Battle
Cry may never know that there was another category of wargame.
To clarify, Chopper Strike was a MB creation. It contains a map board
with squares marked on it. An corresponding grid of squares is on a
second board made of clear plastic which stands about 5 inches above the
cardboard map board. Players control plastic Jeeps and plastic
Choppers. Jeeps can shoot down Choppers by stopping underneath them.
Choppers can bomb Jeeps. There are a few other rules, but you basically
know enough to play the game now.
My only response to the section of your post/reply on chrome is that I
do not believe chrome in a wargame is necessarily a bad thing.
I disagree with your assessment that I lump all games as just games with
different types of chrome on top of "just game" rule sets. It is
certainly not how I think. And I _agree_ with your paragraph about how
you disagree with what you think I think.
Let me be more clear. There ARE different categories of games.
David
The Maverick
>
> As an aside, though, I've never been satisfied with the diagrams in the
> military-history books. They don't move. I keep wanting to see some kind of
> dynamic illustration of the battle I'm reading about.
Isn't that what the History Channel is for? ;-)
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Patrick Carroll
>This is all well and good. But here's the thing: it isn't any fun.
>And if it isn't any fun, it's not a "game" by anybody's measure. It's
>merely a simulation, of whatever level of accuracy and abstraction.
>But no more than that. And in that case, it's just as well to simply
>read the Military History books and look at the diagrams to be done
>with it.
Believe it or not, I pretty much agree. I would not have agreed back when I
started wargaming in '68, or in my heyday of wargaming in the 70s & early 80s.
But I do now. Experience has brought me around to pretty much the point you're
favoring here.
(As an aside, though, I've never been satisfied with the diagrams in the
military-history books. They don't move. I keep wanting to see some kind of
dynamic illustration of the battle I'm reading about. And my imagination just
isn't up to the task.)
>Because let's face it. The more "accurate" the historical scenario,
>the less room there is for experimentation or variation. . . .
>So the whole thing really becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you
>don't" Catch-22 type thing. . . .
>
>The best one can hope for is to pick a historical "jumping-off" point
>at which the forces are roughly evenly balanced and throw history to
>the winds afterwards. Because once the historical flow has been
>broken, it's rather difficult to bring it back.
Exactly. (And eloquently put, btw. I like your style.)
>Personally, I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied here.
>Which is too bad. . . .
Well, if you thought I was just griping, you've got me all wrong. I've had
Battle Cry for only a week or two, and I've played all the scenarios through
once. I'll probably play the game some more, too. And I expect to be able to
get a nonwargaming friend or two to try it. It's the closest thing I've ever
had to the Civil War miniatures game I've always dreamed of--and that's pretty
cool.
Before I got BC, I was messing around with DBA variants. DBA is a simple
miniatures wargame that can be played with cardboard squares or most anything
(I used dominoes). Such games are about all I'm willing to tackle these
days--mostly because I've long since become disillusioned with the realistic
kind of wargame I described at the beginning of this thread.
No, my purpose was not to bitch about how low wargame design has sunk. All I
wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has traditionally meant in
wargaming. If I'm complaining about anything, it's the misuse of the word
"realism"--nothing more.
I don't suppose this thread is going to really change anybody's mind. But it
enabled me to get something off my chest. As I said, I'm just tired of hearing
people say, "Well, such-and-such isn't realistic either: there's no blood or
terror, burning villages, or lost orders." Behind such remarks is the fallacy
that "realism" means duplication of the full battlefield experience. It
doesn't. It just means that the wargame has a number of verifiable,
measurable, hard-data connections with the real-life event it's based on.
I'm not in favor of that kind of wargame. I'm just in favor of people using
"holistic" or "multidimensional" or some other word than "realistic" when
they're discussing simulation of the *experience* of battlefield command (as
opposed to the mathematical simulation of battlefield movement &
interaction--the strictly physical dimension of the event).
> . . . Because a lot of these games actually are quite fun
>to play.
Well, fun is subjective. Personally I have fun learning. For me, reading a
military-history book and studying the diagrams can be a lot of fun.
When it comes to games, I had fun with wargames when I was able to believe in
and rely on their realism (their connections with the military history I read).
I could immerse myself in the game and imagine that I was gaining hands-on
(albeit vicarious) experience with historical possibilities. Then I could go
back to the books and feel I had a better sense of what I was reading about.
After a while, though, it became clear that hardly any wargames were realistic
enough to be worthwhile in that educational sense. They were way more
complicated and time-consuming than they were worth. So I turned to lighter,
more fast-paced wargames and played them mainly just for fun.
But then, since there was no longer any verifiable connection to my
military-history reading anyway, it got to where I lost interest in playing
wargames. If I was playing games just for fun, why not play pinochle or
Settlers or Dune or Civilization or something? Wargames were OK, but if they
were just games after all, I might as well play whatever's fun.
So, that's what I do now. I find some of the classic card & board games to be
just as much fun as any others--and often elegantly streamlined and fast-paced
to boot. But, just for variety's sake, I'll play a little Settlers or some
Battle Cry too. Whatever's fun.
For me, though, immersion is a key factor in my enjoyment of anything. Light,
social games don't really do it for me. Nor do brain-busting abstract mental
challenges like chess or go. I like a game where there's a fair amount to
think about & do each turn--a game I can delve into and lose myself in for an
hour or three.
Doesn't matter if it's a wargame or not, though. Not anymore.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>Question: where would you place miniatures wargames like Warhammer
>(Fantasy, Ancients, and Sci-Fi) and it's brethren??? Far more tactical
>and strategic than the party games, but utterly lacking in scientific
>basis, and clearly fictional rather than historical.
>Because I don't care what you want to argue -- Star Fleet Battles is a
>*serious* wargame. It's fictional, it's non-scientific, but it's got a
>rules-set to make any man cry.
I was wondering about this myself, as I wrote the long post that started this
thread. Since you asked, I'll think onto the keyboard here and see what comes
up on the screen.
Obviously one can't begin the design of such a game by pulling out historical
maps & data tables. Yet it does seem that the aim of such designs is to
present the illusion that the game is indeed based on accurate maps & data
tables.
So, I suppose the designer does what writers of realistic fiction do: he
builds a detailed, carefully measured lie. In his mind, he designs a realm (a
battlefield, world, or whatever), populates it, and creates conflict within it,
as well as the means of resolving the conflict.
No matter that such a setting never existed physically. The designer can still
apply mathematical measurements to it, just by choosing an arbitrary starting
point and building everything in relative proportion to it. In the process,
some memories of real-world experiences probably creep in and influence the
design--but the designer is free to pick and choose which of those to
implement, and how.
So, I guess I'd call it a "realistic fiction game" as opposed to a "realistic
history game." Both employ rigorously proportioned and timed measurements.
The only difference is that the historical game traces its measurements back to
recorded facts (detailed maps, data tables, and so forth), while the fictional
game traces its measurements to *imaginary* maps, data tables, and so forth.
Since all facts are suspect anyway (for all we know--and as some theologians
would assert--this physical world and its history may all be just an illusion),
what's the difference which set of facts--real or imaginary--the game-data
measurements are based on? It's the rigorous measurement itself--the strict
proportion--that constitutes realism.
That's my answer tonight, anyway. I'm pretty sleepy, though, so by morning I
may be appalled to see what I wrote above.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
John Hwang
> John Hwang says:
> >This is all well and good. But here's the thing: it isn't any fun.
> >And if it isn't any fun, it's not a "game" by anybody's measure.
> >It's merely a simulation, of whatever level of accuracy and
> >abstraction. But no more than that. And in that case, it's just
> >as well to simply read the Military History books and look at the
> >diagrams to be done with it.
>
> Believe it or not, I pretty much agree. I would not have agreed
> back when I started wargaming in '68, or in my heyday of wargaming
> in the 70s & early 80s. But I do now. Experience has brought me
> around to pretty much the point you're favoring here.
Excellent! We agree that notionally, games are supposed to be fun! :)
> (As an aside, though, I've never been satisfied with the diagrams
> in the military-history books. They don't move. I keep wanting to
> see some kind of dynamic illustration of the battle I'm reading
> about. And my imagination just isn't up to the task.)
Oh. For me, these have just about always been adequate -- perhaps I'm
somewhat better at visualizing things??? Oh well.
Still, with the latest 3-D video technology, I'm sure we're not far off
from the day in which the whole thing can be really beautifully done as
a user-controllable movie-type thing.
> >Because let's face it. The more "accurate" the historical scenario,
> >the less room there is for experimentation or variation. . . .
> >So the whole thing really becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you
> >don't" Catch-22 type thing. . . .
> >
> >The best one can hope for is to pick a historical "jumping-off" point
> >at which the forces are roughly evenly balanced and throw history to
> >the winds afterwards. Because once the historical flow has been
> >broken, it's rather difficult to bring it back.
>
> Exactly. (And eloquently put, btw. I like your style.)
Thanks.
> >Personally, I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied here.
> >Which is too bad. . . .
>
> Well, if you thought I was just griping, you've got me all wrong.
Probably. Usenet is usually simply *terrible* at conveying tone.
> I've had Battle Cry for only a week or two, and I've played all
> the scenarios through once. I'll probably play the game some more,
> too. And I expect to be able to get a nonwargaming friend or two to
> try it. It's the closest thing I've ever had to the Civil War
> miniatures game I've always dreamed of--and that's pretty cool.
So it's still a reasonably good buy, even for the expert. And if the
game engine is any good, I'm certain you can come up with
whatever "house rules" are necessary.
> Before I got BC, I was messing around with DBA variants. DBA is a
> simple miniatures wargame that can be played with cardboard squares
> or most anything (I used dominoes). Such games are about all I'm
> willing to tackle these days--mostly because I've long since
> become disillusioned with the realistic kind of wargame I described
> at the beginning of this thread.
As a mini's wargamer, there is something uniquely visceral about moving
toy soldiers across a battlefield that simply isn't captured by
markers, counters, or chits.
From a psych standpoint, there's probably quite a bit of sandbox in it.
> No, my purpose was not to bitch about how low wargame design has
> sunk. All I wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has
> traditionally meant in wargaming. If I'm complaining about
> anything, it's the misuse of the word "realism"--nothing more.
OK. Now *this* is something I'm on board with, and generally agree
with.
> I don't suppose this thread is going to really change anybody's
> mind. But it enabled me to get something off my chest. As I said,
> I'm just tired of hearing people say, "Well, such-and-such isn't
> realistic either: there's no blood or terror, burning villages,
> or lost orders." Behind such remarks is the fallacy that
> "realism" means duplication of the full battlefield experience. It
> doesn't. It just means that the wargame has a number of
> verifiable, measurable, hard-data connections with the real-life
> event it's based on.
Agree.
> I'm not in favor of that kind of wargame. I'm just in favor of
> people using "holistic" or "multidimensional" or some other word
> than "realistic" when they're discussing simulation of the
> *experience* of battlefield command (as opposed to the mathematical
> simulation of battlefield movement & interaction--the strictly
> physical dimension of the event).
I dunno. I'm just as happy to see the game described as a "command
simulation" vs a "battle simulation". The problem with "command" games
is that, to be done properly, they should really be played double-blind
with (or "against") a referee. This is a pretty difficult thing to set
up for a lot of games. And scales poorly past the squad level. But it
is extremely satisfying and can do an excellent job of capturing a lot
of the detail and information elements missing from battle
simulations.
> > . . . Because a lot of these games actually are quite fun
> >to play.
>
> Well, fun is subjective. Personally I have fun learning. For me,
> reading a military-history book and studying the diagrams can be
> a lot of fun.
Agree that there are *lots* of kinds of fun. But learning by reading
lacks the interactive and unpredictable elements of a game.
> When it comes to games, I had fun with wargames when I was able to
> believe in and rely on their realism (their connections with the
> military history I read). I could immerse myself in the game and
> imagine that I was gaining hands-on (albeit vicarious) experience
> with historical possibilities. Then I could go back to the books
> and feel I had a better sense of what I was reading about.
>
> After a while, though, it became clear that hardly any wargames
> were realistic enough to be worthwhile in that educational sense.
> They were way more complicated and time-consuming than they were
> worth. So I turned to lighter, more fast-paced wargames and played
> them mainly just for fun.
>
> But then, since there was no longer any verifiable connection to my
> military-history reading anyway, it got to where I lost interest in
> playing wargames. If I was playing games just for fun, why not play
> pinochle or Settlers or Dune or Civilization or something? Wargames
> were OK, but if they were just games after all, I might as well play
> whatever's fun.
True. If that's the case, why not move to Fantasy or Sci-Fi
wargaming? The same principles of strategy and tactics should apply by
analogy from military/historical gaming and you won't have the problems
matching things up.
> So, that's what I do now. I find some of the classic card & board
> games to be just as much fun as any others--and often elegantly
> streamlined and fast-paced to boot. But, just for variety's sake,
> I'll play a little Settlers or some Battle Cry too. Whatever's fun.
FWIW, I generally prefer the streamlined games. It's annoying when the
game bogs down for no good reason.
> For me, though, immersion is a key factor in my enjoyment of
> anything. Light, social games don't really do it for me. Nor do
> brain-busting abstract mental challenges like chess or go. I like a
> game where there's a fair amount to think about & do each turn --
> a game I can delve into and lose myself in for an hour or three.
>
> Doesn't matter if it's a wargame or not, though. Not anymore.
I think miniatures wargaming might strike a good balance for you. Try
DiscWars, which is very inexpensive as far as these things go. Also
consider squad-level minis wargames like Warzone (or VOR). Finally, if
you're thinking platoon/brigade-level, there's always 40k.
John Hwang
> John H. asks:
> >Question: where would you place miniatures wargames like Warhammer
> >(Fantasy, Ancients, and Sci-Fi) and it's brethren??? Far more
> >tactical and strategic than the party games, but utterly lacking
> >in scientific basis, and clearly fictional rather than historical.
> . . .
> >Because I don't care what you want to argue -- Star Fleet Battles
> >is a *serious* wargame. It's fictional, it's non-scientific, but
> >it's got a rules-set to make any man cry.
>
> I was wondering about this myself, as I wrote the long post that
> started this thread. Since you asked, I'll think onto the keyboard
> here and see what comes up on the screen.
OK, that works. Lessee what we've got...
> Obviously one can't begin the design of such a game by pulling out
> historical maps & data tables. Yet it does seem that the aim of
> such designs is to present the illusion that the game is indeed
> based on accurate maps & data tables.
Yup. This is the game's back-story "Fluff", however rational or
contrived.
> So, I suppose the designer does what writers of realistic fiction
> do: he builds a detailed, carefully measured lie. In his mind,
> he designs a realm (a battlefield, world, or whatever), populates
> it, and creates conflict within it,
Yup. Tho many of these games simply take the basis for conflict that
everybody hates everybody, except for when it's more convenient to ally
against a greater enemy. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Some of the games run a pseudo-historical timeline of what conflicts
were happinging when, and where they occur on the world-map.
So this is the "who, what, where, when, and why" in the game universe.
> as well as the means of resolving the conflict.
Yup. These are the game engines and rules. Or simply "how".
> No matter that such a setting never existed physically. The
> designer can still apply mathematical measurements to it, just by
> choosing an arbitrary starting point and building everything in
> relative proportion to it.
Yup. This is the typical approach in terms of "balancing" forces in
the game universe.
> In the process, some memories of real-world experiences probably
> creep in and influence the design--
Of course. There are certain archetypical things which are necessary
to connect the game universe with the real world. Otherwise, it won't
make sense to the player.
> but the designer is free to pick and choose which of those to
> implement, and how.
Just like in military/historical wargames, as we've noted elsewhere.
> So, I guess I'd call it a "realistic fiction game" as opposed to
> a "realistic history game." Both employ rigorously proportioned
> and timed measurements. The only difference is that the historical
> game traces its measurements back to recorded facts (detailed maps,
> data tables, and so forth), while the fictional game traces its
> measurements to *imaginary* maps, data tables, and so forth.
OK. I'd buy this.
> Since all facts are suspect anyway (for all we know--and as some
> theologians would assert--this physical world and its history may
> all be just an illusion), what's the difference which set of facts--
> real or imaginary--the game-data measurements are based on? It's
> the rigorous measurement itself--the strict proportion--that
> constitutes realism.
I dunno. I'm not much for wishy-washy stuff, preferring more of
a "duck" approach. If it seems real, it is real.
> That's my answer tonight, anyway. I'm pretty sleepy, though, so
> by morning I may be appalled to see what I wrote above.
Doubt it. The above hangs together fairly well.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>No, my purpose was not to bitch about how low wargame design has sunk. All
>I wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has traditionally meant
>in wargaming. If I'm complaining about anything, it's the misuse of the
> word "realism"--nothing more.
As usual, I disagree about the very nature of your posting.
You were explaining what the word realism meant *to you*. Other people may
have a very different interpretation of what realism in wargames means. For
me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this), a wargame is realistic to the
extent that as a player, you have the same information available to you as
the historical commander of your side, and you have the same choices to
make, and the probabilities of the different outcomes that result from your
decisions seem reasonable in light of what was historically possible.
This meaning of realism is equally as valid as, but very different from,
what you are claiming is some sort of standard meaning for "realism".
--
Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Visit the Silicon Valley Boardgamers at http://www.best.com/~davekohr/svb
"saying yes to one thing is saying no to another" -- Reiner Knizia
Christian Killoran
<dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> wrote in message
news:8sl6uu$2bjr$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> You were explaining what the word realism meant *to you*. Other people may
> have a very different interpretation of what realism in wargames means.
For
> me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this), a wargame is realistic to the
> extent that as a player, you have the same information available to you as
> the historical commander of your side, and you have the same choices to
> make, and the probabilities of the different outcomes that result from
your
> decisions seem reasonable in light of what was historically possible.
>
> This meaning of realism is equally as valid as, but very different from,
> what you are claiming is some sort of standard meaning for "realism".
While it is true that every gamer might have his own internal definition of
what "realism" means, I think (if I have followed his posts correctly) that
Patrick has been using the term as understood by a generation of wargamers.
A hobby-specific connotation has value whether or not you or I agrees with
it, as it prevents discussions from devolving into semantic debates.
For the record, I happen to share with Patrick the view that just because a
wargame does not focus on a particular pet-issue (C&C, supply logistics,
absence of fear of death, or whatever) it does not make that game
"unrealistic." It may make that game "less realistic" than another game
that employs those features, but as long as the designer makes a conscious
choice to reflect historical reality as a basis for his game I'm comfortable
calling the product a "serious wargame."
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Christian Killoran <xm...@pcisys.net> wrote:
>I think (if I have followed his posts correctly) that
>Patrick has been using the term as understood by a generation of wargamers.
No, I don't think there was any such consensus. Some people in that
generation would agree with Patrick's definition, some would agree with
mine, and undoubtedly some have some other definition.
It is arguably the case that at that time, many game designers strove to
produce the sort of detailed "time and motion" studies Patrick described,
but it's also the case that there was extensive experimentation with
various command-and-control mechanics, and criticism of games that produced
highly unrealistic results due to the lack of adequate C&C mechanics. But
that is a different point entirely.
--
Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Bay Area Games Day XIII is coming soon! Nov. 18 at 10 AM in Los Altos, CA
See http://www.best.com/~davekohr/gamesday for all the details.
Patrick Carroll
>>Patrick has been using the term as understood by a generation of wargamers.
Dave K.:
>No, I don't think there was any such consensus. Some people in that
>generation would agree with Patrick's definition, some would agree with
>mine, and undoubtedly some have some other definition.
Christian K.:
>A hobby-specific connotation has value whether or not you or I agrees with
it, as it prevents discussions from devolving into semantic debates.<
Thanks, Christian.
I don't care to wrangle about this, but I'll just say a couple quick things:
1. I didn't claim there was a *consensus*; just that I spent a couple decades
reading wargame magazines and running a wargame club (for a short time), and it
was usually clear to most of us what "realism" meant and how it worked in
wargames. (Obviously *some* folks must've disagreed, because some designers
took off in a new direction and created another generation of games--some of
them based on a different sense of "realism.")
2. I wouldn't care much about the *consensus* even if I did know what it was.
To me, life is a quest for Truth, and consensus is just a big stumbling block.
Anytime everybody agrees that such-and-such is obviously true, my money's on it
turning out (in the long run) to be an illusion.
Dave K.:
>You were explaining what the word realism meant *to you*. Other people may
have a very different interpretation of what realism in wargames means. For
me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this). . . .<
It's pretty clear, Dave, that you mainly just wanted to say what realism means
to *you.* So, I'm glad you had an opportunity to do that--and FWIW, I'm sure
you're not alone in it either.
Dave K.:
>This meaning of realism is equally as valid as, but very different from,
what you are claiming is some sort of standard meaning for "realism".<
Yep. You're right.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>1. I didn't claim there was a *consensus*; just that I spent a couple decades
>reading wargame magazines and running a wargame club (for a short time), and it
>was usually clear to most of us what "realism" meant and how it worked in
>wargames.
You wrote this:
All I wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has
traditionally meant in wargaming. If I'm complaining about
anything, it's the misuse of the word "realism"--nothing more.
which strongly implies that there was some sort of consensus.
>Dave K.:
>>You were explaining what the word realism meant *to you*. Other people may
>have a very different interpretation of what realism in wargames means. For
>me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this). . . .<
>
>It's pretty clear, Dave, that you mainly just wanted to say what realism
>means to *you.*
Wrong again.
I tossed out my interpretation of the term simply to illustrate that the
one you were using is far from being the only one.
Elliot Wilen
<dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> wrote:
>Wrong again.
>
>I tossed out my interpretation of the term simply to illustrate that the
>one you were using is far from being the only one.
Dave, frankly, who cares? Patrick may have been backtracking without
admitting it, but at least he was accepting a point which serves to
advance the discussion. Terms are being defined. Now move on.
I'm beginning to see this sort of argument about "what you said before
vs. what you mean now" as little better than spelling flames.
--Elliot Wilen
--
Unless replying, please include the word "rabbit" in the subject line
when sending me email.
Want to ban junk email? Visit http://www.cauce.org/
Patrick Carroll
>>1. I didn't claim there was a *consensus*; just that I spent a couple
>decades
>>reading wargame magazines and running a wargame club (for a short time), and
>it
>>was usually clear to most of us what "realism" meant and how it worked in
>>wargames.
Dave K.:
>You wrote this:
>
> All I wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has
> traditionally meant in wargaming. If I'm complaining about
> anything, it's the misuse of the word "realism"--nothing more.
>
>which strongly implies that there was some sort of consensus.
Maybe we mean two different things by "consensus." What I was saying is that
"in my day" there was a more or less standard meaning of the word "realism" as
applied to wargames. When Tom Oleson, the designer of Anzio, said his new
rules made the game more realistic, most everybody knew that he meant it was
more true-to-life *in the way I described in my long post at the beginning of
this thread.* When wargamers said Napoleon's Last Battles was a lot more
realistic than Waterloo, we all knew what that meant--and what it meant was
what I described in my first post in this thread.
So if you call that standardization of meaning a "consensus," then yeah, I
guess I *was* talking about a consensus.
But you've disagreed with me on the basis that *everybody* didn't share that
view of "realism." And what I'm saying is that I never claimed they did. Of
course *some* people were thinking along different lines. We weren't robots,
all programmed with precisely the same software.
But we *were* busy discussing the relative merits of realism vs playability (a
very popular and long-running debate). And I don't recall anyone spending much
time debating the *definitions* of those two words. We all felt we had a
pretty good idea what they meant. And what "realism" meant was pretty much
what I described in my long post.
Can I be mistaken in my memory of how things were? Sure. Might there have
been a whole 'nuther sector of the wargaming world that I was unaware of? I
suppose so.
Be that as it may, I'll stand by my main point: A wargame ought not to be
branded "unrealistic" just on the grounds that it fails to capture some
particular dimension of the actual battlefield experience (e.g., command
control, or the visceral blood & terror of battle). Many wargames are built
upon strong mathematical connections with battle, yet the designer never had
any intent of modelling *all* dimensions of his subject. The resultant game is
realistic, even though it may be limited.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>Dave K.:
>>You wrote this:
>>
>> All I wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has
>> traditionally meant in wargaming. If I'm complaining about
>> anything, it's the misuse of the word "realism"--nothing more.
>>
>>which strongly implies that there was some sort of consensus.
>
>"in my day" there was a more or less standard meaning of the word "realism" as
>applied to wargames. When Tom Oleson, the designer of Anzio, said his new
>rules made the game more realistic, most everybody knew that he meant it was
>more true-to-life *in the way I described in my long post at the beginning of
>this thread.*
Sounds like a perfect example of a consensus.
>Be that as it may, I'll stand by my main point: A wargame ought not to be
>branded "unrealistic" just on the grounds that it fails to capture some
>particular dimension of the actual battlefield experience (e.g., command
>control, or the visceral blood & terror of battle). Many wargames are built
>upon strong mathematical connections with battle, yet the designer never had
>any intent of modelling *all* dimensions of his subject. The resultant game is
>realistic, even though it may be limited.
That's a matter of opinion, and we happen to disagree. My opinion is that
if a wargame fails to model realistically some factor that had a big impact
on the outcome of a conflict, then the game as a whole is unrealistic, even
if it models other factors highly realistically and in great detail.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Elliot Wilen <ell...@emf.emf.net> wrote:
>In article <8so6pg$3gu$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> wrote:
>>
>>I tossed out my interpretation of the term simply to illustrate that the
>>one you were using is far from being the only one.
>
>admitting it, but at least he was accepting a point which serves to
>advance the discussion.
That much is true, however, in the exchange you've quoted he's also made a
silly claim about my motives (a kind of _ad hominem_ argument), which I
found annoying.
>I'm beginning to see this sort of argument about "what you said before
>vs. what you mean now" as little better than spelling flames.
He has a long history of making empty claims to the effect that his way or
his idea is the only or best way. Pointing out inconsistencies in these
claims is one of the surest ways of deflating them.
Patrick Carroll
>his idea is the only or best way. Pointing out inconsistencies in these
>claims is one of the surest ways of deflating them.
>--Dave Kohr
Thanks for helping keep me humble, Dave. (Gosh, I didn't know you cared.) ;-)
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>>. . . The resultant game is
>>realistic, even though it may be limited.
Dave K.:
>That's a matter of opinion, and we happen to disagree. My opinion is that
>if a wargame fails to model realistically some factor that had a big impact
>on the outcome of a conflict, then the game as a whole is unrealistic, even
>if it models other factors highly realistically and in great detail.
I understand that you disagree, and I've given my thumbs-up of validity to your
opinion. Yet you've said that's not good enough. I'm not sure what you're
after.
You're apparently saying one of two things:
1. Contrary to what Patrick says, there never was any standard or
traditionally accepted definition of "realism" in wargaming.
or
2. There was (or is) a standard or traditionally accepted definition of
"realism," but Patrick is misleading us as to what it was (or is).
If you're saying 1 above, I'm left wondering how it was that the word "realism"
managed to make its way so unobtrusively into so many gaming magazines during
the 1970s when I was reading them. The authors seemed to know what they were
talking about, and my friends and I all seemed pretty clear on what "realism"
meant. And what it meant to us--and what it seemed to mean to the authors
(many of them wargame designers) was pretty much what I described in the long
post that started this thread. Are you saying we were all terribly confused
but didn't know it?
If instead you mean 2 above, then you cannot refute my claim just by posting
your own personal opinion. If you believe there was a *different* standard or
traditional (or consensus) definition of "realism," you have to tell us what it
was. Then readers can look back at my post, read your post, compare the two,
and decide which (if either) rings a bell for them as to what realism in
wargaming meant (and still means to some).
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>You're apparently saying one of two things:
>
>1. Contrary to what Patrick says, there never was any standard or
>traditionally accepted definition of "realism" in wargaming.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that this is what I'm saying: there
was never any single crystal-clear way to define how realistic a game is.
Patrick Carroll
>was never any single crystal-clear way to define how realistic a game is.
>--Dave Kohr
Maybe not as definite and unanimously accepted a way as you'd like. But as
I've pointed out repeatedly, the word "realism" has been used and understood
for decades in wargaming literature. That seems to strongly indicate that
there has been a standard usage (and thus a commonly accepted definition).
And despite varying opinions on which real-life factors ought to be
incorporated into a wargame design, I'd say it's generally accepted that
"realism" refers to credible connections between the game and the battle (or
whatever) it's based on.
Once upon a time, such dimensions as command control and limited intelligence
were almost non-issues. Verifiable measurements (rate of march, firepower
effectiveness at various ranges, etc.) accounted for most of the "credible
connections." And I still think that's one valid approach--and one perfectly
OK way to make a wargame realistic.
I'm also happy with games that do include other dimensions such as command
control. But unless the design works those dimensions in in a *verifiable* way
(not just a credible one), I'm personally going to be suspicious of it. I'm
likely to regard the game as an extension of military fiction, not military
history. And thus the game will, to me, perhaps be less realistic than one
which ignores those other dimensions entirely.
Once a game strays from *verifiable* (measurable, or subject to confirmation in
solid historical records) connections with the battle it's based on, we have to
place our trust in the designer's interpretation--which may be as much
intuition or imagination as fact. That's not a problem if we're only
interested in verisimilitude (which is how we approach fiction, and how we
usually approach themed games). But it may be a problem if we're interested in
gaining a better understanding of the actual battle. In that case, the game
may be misleading.
Having said that, I'll acknowledge that works of fiction can also afford valid
insights and enhance our understanding. I have no problem with fiction. I
just think it's important to make a distinction between fact and fiction--and
to classify wargames according to how true they are to the facts they're based
on.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>DRK:
>>there
>>was never any single crystal-clear way to define how realistic a game is.
>
>I've pointed out repeatedly, the word "realism" has been used and understood
>for decades in wargaming literature. That seems to strongly indicate that
>there has been a standard usage (and thus a commonly accepted definition).
>
>And despite varying opinions on which real-life factors ought to be
>incorporated into a wargame design, I'd say it's generally accepted that
>"realism" refers to credible connections between the game and the battle (or
>whatever) it's based on.
>
>Once upon a time, such dimensions as command control and limited intelligence
>were almost non-issues. Verifiable measurements (rate of march, firepower
>effectiveness at various ranges, etc.) accounted for most of the "credible
>connections." And I still think that's one valid approach--and one perfectly
>OK way to make a wargame realistic.
Your assertion about the way things used to be is flat-out wrong.
These factors were never "almost non-issues" (and claiming they were is
ludicrous), they were simply harder to model, hence less likely to be found
in most designs way back then. To the contrary, there were efforts to model
C3I and other "soft factors" that stretch from the early 70's, when the
level of detail in the most complex designs began to climb noticeably, back
to the "classic" era of AH games.
There indisputably were serious efforts to model these factors in even
quite old games. Consider AH's ancient "Midway" (from 1964 I think), which
used double-blind play to simulate limited intelligence. Or SPI's "Desert
War" (1973), one of many early/mid 70's SPI tactical designs that used
simultaneous movement to simulate the difficulty of reacting quickly to
enemy movements. "Desert War" also used randomization of individual units'
moves as a crude simulation of command-control.
>And thus the game will, to me, perhaps be less realistic than one
>which ignores those other dimensions entirely.
I couldn't care less whether you think it's realistic, since I reject your
definition of realism. But I will object if you claim that your definition
is the "standard", "accepted", "understood" one, because it isn't and never
was.
>I just think it's important to make a distinction between fact and fiction
Games that pretend that C3I and other soft factors don't matter are quite
likely to produce fictional results.
Kevin J. Maroney
>"Desert War" also used randomization of individual units'
>moves as a crude simulation of command-control.
Don't forget _Panzergruppe Guderian_'s breakthrough use of untested
units to simulate a commander's uncertainties of the quality of his
own troops. 1973, IIRC.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
Games are my entire waking life
Patrick Carroll
It's the way I remember 'em.
>These factors were never "almost non-issues" (and claiming they were is
>ludicrous), they were simply harder to model, hence less likely to be found
>in most designs way back then.
Which is more or less what I meant by "non-issues." Most of us took it for
granted that it'd be impossible to elegantly, conveniently, playably
incorporate hidden movement (for example) into a board wargame. So we just
shrugged it off. Sure, we *wished* it could be done. And I suppose somewhere
in the back of our mind, we imagined that someday somebody would find a way.
But since we were without it, we focused on the aspects of warfare that *were*
simulated in the game; and the rest, to us, was a "non-issue."
> To the contrary, there were efforts to model
>C3I and other "soft factors" that stretch from the early 70's, when the
>level of detail in the most complex designs began to climb noticeably, back
>to the "classic" era of AH games.
Sure. There was a vanguard of game designers, some of whom may have been
intent on simulating the *whole* of military events. There were innovations
(ceaseless at SPI--to the point of ridiculousness). But most of the results,
as I recall, received a lukewarm welcome at best.
>There indisputably were serious efforts to model these factors in even
>quite old games. Consider AH's ancient "Midway" (from 1964 I think), which
>used double-blind play to simulate limited intelligence. Or SPI's "Desert
>War" (1973), one of many early/mid 70's SPI tactical designs that used
>simultaneous movement to simulate the difficulty of reacting quickly to
>enemy movements. "Desert War" also used randomization of individual units'
>moves as a crude simulation of command-control.
Well, I never played either of those, so I'll take your word for it. Midway
was popular when there were few wargames to choose from. IIRC, Desert War was
an overly detailed monster that few people actually played (but maybe I'm
confusing it with another title). I doubt that either did any more than take a
dubious swat at modelling the "soft factors" of warfare.
>>And thus the game will, to me, perhaps be less realistic than one
>>which ignores those other dimensions entirely.
>
>I couldn't care less whether you think it's realistic, since I reject your
>definition of realism. But I will object if you claim that your definition
>is the "standard", "accepted", "understood" one, because it isn't and never
>was.
Face it. You don't know any more about what was or wasn't than I do. We're
just recalling things differently.
>>I just think it's important to make a distinction between fact and fiction
>
>Games that pretend that C3I and other soft factors don't matter are quite
>likely to produce fictional results.
As are games that attempt to model such factors but fail miserably--or succeed
in dubious, unverifiable ways. Which is true of every wargame I've seen that
has attempted it.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>>Your assertion about the way things used to be is flat-out wrong.
>It's the way I remember 'em.
>
>>These factors were never "almost non-issues" (and claiming they were is
>>ludicrous), they were simply harder to model, hence less likely to be found
>>in most designs way back then.
>
>Which is more or less what I meant by "non-issues."
That is an extremely non-standard usage of the term "non-issue". The term
you are looking for is probably "unresolved issue".
Try posting in English next time.
>You don't know any more about what was or wasn't than I do. We're
>just recalling things differently.
Nonsense. You have made wildly incorrect generalizations, and I have
refuted them with quite specific counter-examples.
>>Games that pretend that C3I and other soft factors don't matter are quite
>>likely to produce fictional results.
>
>As are games that attempt to model such factors but fail miserably
Except that some of these games didn't fail miserably. Midway's double-
blind mechanic for example is still the standard way to model this kind of
situation, because it worked pretty well. In fact, another carrier battle
game that uses it, "Solomon Sea", came out earlier this year.
Of course, whether or not these efforts to model soft factors were
successful is irrelevant to my original point, which was simply that such
efforts were made and soft factors were anything but a "non-issue".
Patrick Carroll
>
>That is an extremely non-standard usage of the term "non-issue". The term
>you are looking for is probably "unresolved issue".
No, that's not the term I was looking for. I said what I meant. And since you
didn't understand it, I explained it further. End of discussion on that.
<barb snipped>
>>You don't know any more about what was or wasn't than I do. We're
>>just recalling things differently.
>
>Nonsense. You have made wildly incorrect generalizations, and I have
>refuted them with quite specific counter-examples.
As I've said before, *specific* counter-examples are NOT sufficient to refute
my point about a "consensus" being common, widespread, standard, or generally
accepted. Just because Midway and Desert War seem to have dimensions beyond
the kind of wargame I described, that does absolutely nothing to disprove what
I said. You could name fifty such specific examples, and you'd still have to
go through a thousand other games as well as a whole room full of wargaming
literature.
The question is: What kind of realism were *most* wargamers expecting, and
what aspects of wargames were they talking about when they used the word
"realism" in wargaming literature and among themselves in conversation?
Your "specific counterexamples," as far as I can see, do nothing to answer that
question. At best, they suggest that *some* people had different ideas. The
question about *most* people still remains.
I didn't know most people, of course. Nor did I play most games. I just knew
a lot of people and played a lot of games, and read a fair amount of the
literature of the day. And that's what I'm basing my "claim" on--my memory of
personal experience. My personal experience was limited, and my memory may be
faulty, but it's the best I can do. So, there you have it.
>>>Games that pretend that C3I and other soft factors don't matter are quite
>>>likely to produce fictional results.
>>
>>As are games that attempt to model such factors but fail miserably
>
>Except that some of these games didn't fail miserably.
If they don't, they "succeed
in dubious, unverifiable ways." (Which is the part of my sentence you
snipped.)
>Midway's double-
>blind mechanic for example is still the standard way to model this kind of
>situation, because it worked pretty well. In fact, another carrier battle
>game that uses it, "Solomon Sea", came out earlier this year.
And what makes you say it "worked pretty well"? Does it model, in measurable,
verifiable ways, elements of the corresponding historical situation? Or does
it just do a pretty good job of demonstrating what the designer *thinks* or
*imagines* commanders must've faced? The latter, while valid, is far more
dubious than the former.
>Of course, whether or not these efforts to model soft factors were
>successful is irrelevant to my original point, which was simply that such
>efforts were made and soft factors were anything but a "non-issue".
I'll agree that such efforts were made, and that therefore it's clear that for
certain designers and wargamers such factors were an "issue." But I'll also
continue to say what I've said from the beginning of this thread:
In the history of wargaming, there's a long, deep precedent for using the word
"realism" just to refer to the measurable or verifiable (mathematical)
connections that a wargame has with the scenario it's based on. Many, maybe
most, of us looked for just that; and for some of us, that's still what we
basically mean by "realism."
Therefore, based on that time-honored and widely accepted definition of
"realism" (which is not the *only* valid definition, nor a unanimously accepted
definition), wargames which gloss over certain dimensions of a battle (e.g.,
the "soft factors" or the visceral experience) can still be regarded as
realistic.
Even among wargamers who accepted this definition, there was a *wish* that
other dimensions of warfare could also be simulated. But that wish did not
(and does not) constitute admission that the games at hand were unrealistic.
We considered them realistic (in that they had accurate maps, order of battle,
etc.) even though we could see their limitations.
In fact, many of us rejected innovative wargame designs precisely because they
failed to provide the kind of realism we were used to. (I hated those "untried
units" in Panzergruppe Guderian, for instance, since they effectively stirred
up the historical order of battle into something patently ahistorical. Cute
innovation, but terribly unrealistic by the definition I was used to.)
Then again, some of us (me, for instance) finally arrived at a point where we
decided the kind of realism we were used to was so limited as to be almost
worthless. Some turned to more innovative wargames. Me, I pretty much gave up
in disgust and turned back to classic board and card games.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>>>Which is more or less what I meant by "non-issues."
>>
>>That is an extremely non-standard usage of the term "non-issue". The term
>>you are looking for is probably "unresolved issue".
>
>No, that's not the term I was looking for. I said what I meant.
Then you said it very, very badly.
What you MEANT to say was, "my playing group didn't consider these to be
tractable or important issues, so we didn't care that the games we were
playing didn't model them".
This is *vastly* different from saying without qualification that they were
"non-issues".
>>>You don't know any more about what was or wasn't than I do. We're
>>>just recalling things differently.
>>
>>Nonsense. You have made wildly incorrect generalizations, and I have
>>refuted them with quite specific counter-examples.
>
>As I've said before, *specific* counter-examples are NOT sufficient to refute
>my point about a "consensus" being common, widespread, standard, or generally
>accepted.
>[....]
>You could name fifty such specific examples, and you'd still have to
>go through a thousand other games as well as a whole room full of wargaming
>literature.
As an aside, technically the burden of proof is on *you* to establish that
there was such a consensus, and if someone is able to cite a large number
of counter-examples, than that does in fact weaken your point.
Now if there were a consensus, there would not be major design efforts that
directly contradict the consensus. But in fact there were. The game "Desert
War" that I mentioned was just one in a long line of SPI tactical games
(culminating in "Sniper" I believe) that used similar mechanics to simulate
C3I. And there are at least half a dozen more Battleline/AH tactical games
dating from the mid 70's onward that also used simultaneous plotting to
represent C3I.
>The question is: What kind of realism were *most* wargamers expecting
Given the intensity of design effort put forth by what was the largest
wargaming company at the time (SPI) toward handling C3I and soft factors
better, it's easy to infer that most wargamers were "expecting" something
better than what they were getting.
>and what aspects of wargames were they talking about when they used the
>word "realism" in wargaming literature
Guess what: SPI designers wrote stuff about the new mechanics they were
devising.
>Your "specific counterexamples," as far as I can see, do nothing to answer
>that question.
Not true: it casts severe doubt on your poorly-supported assertion about
some sort of "consensus".
>At best, they suggest that *some* people had different ideas.
Not just "some people", but in fact some of the best designers working at
the largest publisher.
>>>>Games that pretend that C3I and other soft factors don't matter are quite
>>>>likely to produce fictional results.
>>>
>>>As are games that attempt to model such factors but fail miserably
>>
>>Except that some of these games didn't fail miserably.
>
>If they don't, they "succeed in dubious, unverifiable ways."
Irrelevant (this is a tangent, the ancient "design for effect" versus
"design for cause" argument), and also substantially wrong for the 2
examples I cited.
>>Midway's double-
>>blind mechanic for example is still the standard way to model this kind of
>>situation, because it worked pretty well. In fact, another carrier battle
>>game that uses it, "Solomon Sea", came out earlier this year.
>
>And what makes you say it "worked pretty well"? Does it model, in measurable,
>verifiable ways, elements of the corresponding historical situation?
Absolutely. Each side didn't know historically where the other was, could
only search a portion of the ocean, and might be discovered and attacked
without having discovered the location of the other side's carriers. Just
as happens in a game played double-blind.
You can quibble about the details of how double-blind is implemented, but
the mechanism mirrors historical reality in a fundamentally accurate way.
>In the history of wargaming, there's a long, deep precedent for using the
>word
>"realism" just to refer to the measurable or verifiable (mathematical)
>connections that a wargame has with the scenario it's based on.
>[big snip]
>In fact, many of us rejected innovative wargame designs precisely because
>they failed to provide the kind of realism we were used to.
The final outcome of a battle must surely be counted as the most important
"connection" between the game and the scenario it models. The games you
were playing must have produced unrealistic final outcomes for many real
historical situations because they ignored soft factors, and therefore
you should have regarded them as "unrealistic".
It sounds to me as if you simply had a closed mind regarding those
"innovative designs", and didn't apply your own definition of "realism" in
a consistent and fair way.
Patrick Carroll
>
>Then you said it very, very badly.
I did? Oops, sorry.
>What you MEANT to say was, "my playing group didn't consider these to be
>tractable or important issues. . . .
No, it's not. That's what *you* would like to believe. I was talking about
not only my own little group, but also the wargaming world as reflected in the
games & literature & wargaming conventions of the day.
>As an aside, technically the burden of proof is on *you* to establish that
>there was such a consensus. . . .
And on you equally, to establish that there was not. I'm still not convinced,
however, that a "commonly understood definition" (which is what I was talking
about) is the same thing as a "consensus" (which is the word you keep using).
Do people say, "The consensus is that the word 'dog' refers to a member of the
canine family"? "Consensus" seems an odd word to use when we're really just
speaking of usage.
>and if someone is able to cite a large number
>of counter-examples, than that does in fact weaken your point.
Well, you didn't cite a large number of counter-examples, did you? You cited
two. Nor do I buy the notion that just because some games had additional,
novel features, the consensus was not still that the basic, important
features--i.e., those which comprised "realism"--were those I described.
Getting back to the root of all this, for clarity's sake, we're talking about
one thing only: what was commonly understood by literary and conversational
usage of the word "realism" as applied to wargames.
The games themselves strike me as poor indicators of how a word was used and
understood. You'd do better to cite passages from wargaming articles.
>Now if there were a consensus, there would not be major design efforts that
>directly contradict the consensus. But in fact there were. The game "Desert
>War" that I mentioned was just one in a long line of SPI tactical games
>(culminating in "Sniper" I believe) that used similar mechanics to simulate
>C3I. And there are at least half a dozen more Battleline/AH tactical games
>dating from the mid 70's onward that also used simultaneous plotting to
>represent C3I.
Ditto to what I said above. I'm not sure what the games themselves have to do
with it.
>>The question is: What kind of realism were *most* wargamers expecting
>
>Given the intensity of design effort put forth by what was the largest
>wargaming company at the time (SPI) toward handling C3I and soft factors
>better, it's easy to infer that most wargamers were "expecting" something
>better than what they were getting.
Maybe all too easy. Lots of folks I knew thought SPI was full of it. By the
late 70s, most of the people I knew were sick to death of SPI's incessant
innovations. Which may be one reason the company folded.
Besides which, most SPI games *were* realistic in the way I described--even
though they happened to also have layers of "something else." They didn't
abandon the fundamental notion that wargames must be based on measurable,
verifiable data; usually they just added to it. The kind of "realism" I
described predates anything SPI did, and was fundamental to most of their
design efforts as well.
>>and what aspects of wargames were they talking about when they used the
>>word "realism" in wargaming literature
>
>Guess what: SPI designers wrote stuff about the new mechanics they were
>devising.
FYI, SPI designers were a tiny minority within the whole group of wargamers
we're talking about.
>>Your "specific counterexamples," as far as I can see, do nothing to answer
>>that question.
>
>Not true: it casts severe doubt on your poorly-supported assertion about
>some sort of "consensus".
I wonder if anyone else agrees. (And I still wonder what "consensus" has to do
with it.)
>>At best, they suggest that *some* people had different ideas.
>
>Not just "some people", but in fact some of the best designers working at
>the largest publisher.
Now you're being patently elitist.
I'm talking about the commonly understood definition of "realism"; and you're
talking about definitions used by a handful of avant-garde designers.
<snip>
>>In the history of wargaming, there's a long, deep precedent for using the
>>word
>>"realism" just to refer to the measurable or verifiable (mathematical)
>>connections that a wargame has with the scenario it's based on.
>>[big snip]
>>In fact, many of us rejected innovative wargame designs precisely because
>>they failed to provide the kind of realism we were used to.
>
>The final outcome of a battle must surely be counted as the most important
>"connection" between the game and the scenario it models. The games you
>were playing must have produced unrealistic final outcomes for many real
>historical situations because they ignored soft factors, and therefore
>you should have regarded them as "unrealistic".
I've never in my wargaming life attempted to re-create a historical battle
exactly. I've never seen *any* wargame that ended up demonstrating the actual
historical outcome. Nor have I ever cared about that. Wargames almost always
stray from the historical chain of events and have a *different* outcome than
occurred historically. Which is precisely why it's so important that the "hard
factors" (the map, OoB, and other measurable, verifiable elements) be
rigorously modeled in the game: because they're the *only* verifiable
connections with the game's real-world subject. And if you don't have those,
you don't have a realistic wargame--period.
Theoretically, I suppose a realistic wargame ought to *be able* to produce the
historical outcome, given all the historical moves. I've always presumed that
was possible, but I never bothered to test it.
>It sounds to me as if you simply had a closed mind regarding those
>"innovative designs", and didn't apply your own definition of "realism" in
>a consistent and fair way.
I like many of the innovations. I'd go so far as to say Battle Cry probably
captures the whole multidimensional spirit of ACW battles better than Terrible
Swift Sword or Gettysburg '77; and in that sense it's pretty cool. But it
ain't realistic by the old, strict meaning of the term--because many of the
measurable, verifiable elements are severely distorted in BC.
As to "applying my definition of 'realism,'" I'm not sure what that would mean.
I applied it every time I read, wrote, or spoke about realism--and it always
worked just fine.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>>>and what aspects of wargames were they talking about when they used the
>>>word "realism" in wargaming literature
>>
>>Guess what: SPI designers wrote stuff about the new mechanics they were
>>devising.
>
>FYI, SPI designers were a tiny minority within the whole group of wargamers
>we're talking about.
Spectacularly wrong, once again.
SPI was the largest company in terms of sales by the late 70's, they
produced the most new games (and certainly introduced the most new
innovations in design), and the company published 2 of the 3 most important
wargaming magazines, S&T and Moves. And many of the articles in those
magazines were written by the same designers who created those games that
were generating such large sales.
You can pretend as if all the people who bought and liked SPI's games, and
read and agreed with much of what was written in S&T and particularly
Moves, were a tiny minority or didn't count. But you would just be
pretending, living in a sort of alternate universe.
Since you don't seem to inhabit the same universe as all the other people
I've met who were playing these games in the 70's and early 80's, I don't
think there are any common terms for discourse here, so I won't be posting
anymore in this thread.
The Maverick
>
> Spectacularly wrong, once again.
You found that on your business card, didn't you?
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Patrick Carroll
>think there are any common terms for discourse here, so I won't be posting
>anymore in this thread.
>--Dave Kohr
Well, just in case you continue to read the thread, I'm going to stop beating
to death the argument about what "realism" meant in the good ol' days, and
offer something new for consideration:
For argument's sake, we have Wargame X. It purports to be a realistic wargame
on the famous Battle of Y. But when we get into the game itself and the design
notes, we find that actually X just covers a superficial dimension of Y. It
has a map which accurately represents the battlefield; its order of battle
clearly shows which units were where when, along with their relative strength
and mobility; and its combat results table is based squarely on verifiable
data. But alas, that's all. Wargame X completely lacks rules or subsystems
for command control, intelligence gathering, morale, and other "soft factors."
Everybody knows those were key factors in determining the course and outcome of
Battle Y, but Wargame X ignores them completely. The design notes just say
those factors are beyond the game's scope.
So, is Wargame X realistic?
If you believe a wargame must cover the *whole* of the battle it's based on, I
suppose you'd say X is unrealistic. But if you believe that it's OK for a
wargame design to slice off a small piece of the pie, you'd have to say Wargame
X is quite realistic. It's realistic to the extent of what it sets out to do.
At least that's my take on it. What's yours?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
David desJardins
> For argument's sake, we have Wargame X. It purports to be a realistic
> wargame on the famous Battle of Y.
purport v.tr. To have or present the often false appearance of being or
intending.
> But when we get into the game itself and the design notes, we find
> that actually X just covers a superficial dimension of Y.
If the game is superficial, then it doesn't purport to be realistic.
You can't have it both ways.
> Wargame X completely lacks rules or subsystems for command control,
> intelligence gathering, morale, and other "soft factors." Everybody
> knows those were key factors in determining the course and outcome of
> Battle Y
In that case, everyone knows that Wargame X doesn't purport to be a
realistic simulation of those factors; it doesn't "have or present" the
appearance of simulating them.
David desJardins
Christian Killoran
"David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:vohd7gn...@yuban-c.math.berkeley.edu...
I would agree with David on this point. If the soft factors were truly key
factors than a wargame that fails to include them as part of the design is
not a realistic game.
Of course, one might then argue that since C3I is always a key factor of
every battle, then it needs to be represented in every wargame that
considers itself to be realistic. At least this is the impression I have
gotten from reading some of the posts in this thread. I do not believe that
this argument is valid.
If a wargame designer believes that the C3I factors in a given battle cancel
out (since both sides have similar capabilities and similar problems) I
think it's fair to judge a game as realistic despite having no specific
mechanism to address those factors. IMO the most realistic games are those
in which the designer chose to focus on a unique or dominating aspect of the
battle or campaign being fought while "factoring out" issues that were
common to both sides. From this standpoint, a wargame about the WW2 North
African campaigns must include detailed supply rules to be realistic. A
wargame of similar scale about the German invasion of France would not
require such rules to uphold the burden of realism - although this campaign
might be one where detailed C3I mechanisms might be in order.
Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.
Elliot Wilen
think of a few games where the rules are a more-or-less accurate
representation of the hard factors in a situation, but the soft
factors are missing or at best minimally represented in the rules.
Yet these games are converted into significantly more realistic
simulations by the addition of an umpire and/or multiple players per
side, with limited communication. I'm thinking of games like MBT and
Wooden Ships and Iron Men.
What I find interesting is that the rigorous hard factors simulation
provides a foundation and framework for what may be a more informal
soft factors simulation, and it would seem that the participants,
if they're so inclined, could use the game both to test various
assumptions about the soft factors, and to experiment with different
ways of dealing with the soft factors (i.e., command structures and
communications methods) in real life.
Patrick Carroll
>If the game is superficial, then it doesn't purport to be realistic.
>You can't have it both ways.
I don't see the contradiction. Can we look again at the definition you cited:
"purport v.tr. To have or present the often false appearance of being or
intending."
OK, so I've said Wargame X *purports* to be such-and-such but actually *is*
so-and-so. If both can't be true, then I don't understand what the word
"purport" would mean. I'd be happy to substitute "claims to be" or "advertises
itself to be" for "purports to be," though. They all mean about the same thing
to me. But if one of those substitutions helps, feel free to make it.
>> Wargame X completely lacks rules or subsystems for command control,
>> intelligence gathering, morale, and other "soft factors." Everybody
>> knows those were key factors in determining the course and outcome of
>> Battle Y
>
>In that case, everyone knows that Wargame X doesn't purport to be a
>realistic simulation of those factors; it doesn't "have or present" the
>appearance of simulating them.
Yes, it does. But I failed to explicitly point out *how* it does so in my
first post, so I'll take a shot at it here:
Wargame X purports to be a realistic wargame on the famous Battle of Y: I.e.,
the box cover says, "Realistic Wargame"; the true title of the game is "Battle
of Y"; and the design notes include the following excerpt: "Wargame X is a
carefully researched, rigorously modelled simulation of the Battle of Y. It is
limited to covering only the physical, verifiable dimension of that battle.
However, this designer believes that by restricting the game's scope to such
hard-data aspects, realism is maximized. Any attempt to cover such 'soft
factors' as command control would necessitate an abstract, iffy subsystem, the
likes of which this designer regards as patently unrealistic. Therefore,
without meaning to boast, I would say that this game affords by far the most
realistic coverage of the Battle of Y available today." And the design notes
are accompanied by a list of testimonials, all of which support the designer's
view.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
game...@my-deja.com
please let me apologize beforehand.
If two people or a group misunderstand and misuse a given word in a
similar manner, they will understand each other. This will lead to
confusion to all who follow or do not belong.
In article <20001016234930...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
>
> No, my purpose was not to bitch about how low wargame design has
sunk. All I
> wanted to do was explain what the word "realism" has traditionally
meant in
> wargaming. If I'm complaining about anything, it's the misuse of the
word
> "realism"--nothing more.
>
> --P. C.,
> Minnesota
You should not have to qualify abstract. Wargames serious or otherwise
would not exist without abstract speculation. This groundless argument
would never have taken place without the usurption of the word
*realism*. This entire thread has devolved into a pointless diatribe
around peoples misrepresentation of realism. The term *realistic
wargame* is an oxymoron.
All of the data is abstracted with combat results speculated.
How about the players emotions? Maybe a gut level reaction imparts more
feeling then a purely intellectual approach. A stronger impression
maybe?
Maybe the designers reached the conclusion that art is more effective
than science to put across a point. Maybe science just does not sell
wargames.
In article <20001015132959...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
> What I meant was that a certain subclass of wargames has been
> designed on this "scientific" basis, which met the need of a certain
group of
> wargamers.
>
How about "rational wargames"?
The design Philosophy debate between John Hill and Hal Hock contained
the word realistic twice. Once by Don Greenwood in the intro and once,
of all people, by John Hill.
The scientific proponent, Hal Hock, did not mention it at all.
In that same issue, 14 #5, Nicky Palmer uses the word realistic while
describing Arab-Israeli Wars.
These are the early wargame literati. I would put their use of the word
realistic in this context on a par with soak-off instead of diversion.
> How 'bout "scientific wargame"?
How 'bout "practical wargame"?
>
> --P. C.,
> Minnesota
> >Maybe not as definite and unanimously accepted a way as you'd like.
But as
> >I've pointed out repeatedly, the word "realism" has been used and
understood
> >for decades in wargaming literature.
No. It's been misunderstood and misused for decades.
In article <8t7mi5$4rn$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com wrote:
> In article <20001025081049...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
> Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
> >The question is: What kind of realism were *most* wargamers
expecting
Try replacing "realism" with "rationalizations".
>
> >and what aspects of wargames were they talking about when they used
the
> >word "realism" in wargaming literature
Yes. What part of war was not abstracted nor speculated?
> Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the
SPAMFOILER!
> Bay Area Games Day XIII is coming soon! Nov. 18 at 10 AM in Los
Altos, CA
> See http://www.best.com/~davekohr/gamesday for all the details.
>
In article <20001026081959...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
>
>
> I've never in my wargaming life attempted to re-create a historical
battle
> exactly. I've never seen *any* wargame that ended up demonstrating
the actual
> historical outcome.
As an aside, the closest that I've ever come to a game following the
historical path was with Kingmaker. Does anyone out there consider KM a
scientific wargame? a serious wargame? a wargame? a joke?
>
> As to "applying my definition of 'realism,'" I'm not sure what that
would mean.
> I applied it every time I read, wrote, or spoke about realism--and
it always
> worked just fine.
>
> --P. C.,
> Minnesota
Realism-concern or interest in the real as distinguished from the
abstract or speculative
It's well past the time for wargamers to put this word to pasture.
The Gamester
Gamester's Homepage
http://members.aol.com/wergames
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr Faustus
>on the famous Battle of Y. But when we get into the game itself and the
>design
>notes, we find that actually X just covers a superficial dimension of Y. It
>has a map which accurately represents the battlefield; its order of battle
>clearly shows which units were where when, along with their relative strength
>and mobility; and its combat results table is based squarely on verifiable
>data. But alas, that's all. Wargame X completely lacks rules or subsystems
>for command control, intelligence gathering, morale, and other "soft
>factors."
>Everybody knows those were key factors in determining the course and outcome
>of
>Battle Y, but Wargame X ignores them completely. The design notes just say
>those factors are beyond the game's scope.
>
>So, is Wargame X realistic?
>
The is the age-old question of playability vs realism. Most games which
contain specific rules for all the factors you mention (C2, intelligence,
morale, etc) are very complex and take a long time to play.
But don't be so quick to say that these things aren't a factor simply because
there's no explicit rules for them. They could be factored (abstracted) into
the attack/defense factors, movement rates, etc. Just because the designers
notes say that these things are beyond the scope of the game doesn't mean they
weren't factored into the design.
As to realism ... if the game follows the general course of Battle Y, then yes
- I'd say it was 'realistic'. Whatever than means.
Dan
John Hwang
> >I don't think there are any common terms for discourse here, so
> >I won't be posting anymore in this thread.
> >--Dave Kohr
Oddly, this bothers me not at all, given the tone of the exchange. So
I guess I'm thanking you in my own way.
> For argument's sake, we have Wargame X. It purports to be a
> I won't be posting on the famous Battle of Y. But when we get into
> the game itself and the design notes, we find that actually X
> just covers a superficial dimension of Y. It has a map which
> accurately represents the battlefield; its order of battle clearly
> shows which units were where when, along with their relative
> strength and mobility; and its combat results table is based
> squarely on verifiable data. But alas, that's all. Wargame X
> completely lacks rules or subsystems for command control,
> intelligence gathering, morale, and other "soft factors."
> Everybody knows those were key factors in determining the course
> and outcome of Battle Y, but Wargame X ignores them completely.
> The design notes just say those factors are beyond the game's scope.
>
> So, is Wargame X realistic?
Absolutely and unquestionably.
For the things which the designers thought were most important, there
is a realistic basis and result. It's all a matter of abstraction vs
detail. In this case, depending on how the CRT resoves things and how
stats have been assigned, the "soft" factors are in all probability
already folded in, making them implicit elements of the CRT and unit
stats, rather than explicit elements requiring separate rules.
The key question is whether "realistic" strategy and tactics gives
a "realistic" (or at least reasonable or believable) result. If the
answer is a "Yes" (which, unless the CRT and stats were royally screwed
up, should be the case), then it's about as much as one can reasonably
hope for in an ordinary game.
> It's realistic to the extent of what it sets out to do.
Exactly.
And modeling of "soft" factors is an art, rather than a science,
because it's all hypothetical. So it's very easy to get them "wrong".
On the contrary, the "hard" factors like battlefield, OOB, CRT, etc.
are all verifiable and very easy to get "right".
To do the "soft" stuff, properly, the "hard" factors like CRT often
have to be undone to remove the implicit effects that the "soft" stuff.
For example, "hard" weapons performance needs to be reduced so that the
reintroduction of morale effects upon receiving fire brings the net
effect back to the measurable effect.
And so on.
Throw in enough "soft" stuff, and the "hard" data may look totally
different.
--
--- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
The Midnight Skulker
> a "realistic" (or at least reasonable or believable) result. If the
> answer is a "Yes" (which, unless the CRT and stats were royally
> screwed up, should be the case), then it's about as much as one can
> reasonably hope for in an ordinary game.
I would add that the converse is an equally, if not more, important
measuring stick of "realism" IMHO. Does the game allow strategy and
tactics to succeed when, for whatever reason, they would surely have
failed, or not have even been available, in the actual battle?
For example, the classic complaint against PanzerBlitz is that units are
allowed to parade around in the open, perhaps slowing down to make a few
obscene gestures at (or for Monty Python fans, fart in the general
direction of) enemy gun crews, then dart into the woods, there to be
immune to enemy fire. Such movement is not "realistic", and indeed this
deficiency was addressed in that game's sequels.
A game of The Russian Campaign that I played provides another example of
"unrealism". As the Germans I pulled out a draw by holing up on the
Crimean Peninsula. I do not think this was an option for the real
Hitler.
Yet another example is a game of Fortress Europa I played as the Allies.
As I swept into Germany from the north my opponent basically abandoned
the Fatherland to the east, and only the edge of the mapboard prevented
me from flanking him. I did win that game, so the result was not
completely unrealistic, but his strategy certainly was in both of our
opinions.
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 a.k.a. Van....@wgint.com
6
Patrick Carroll
post last time:
Wargame Z also purports to be a realistic wargame on the famous Battle of Y.
But unlike Wargame X, Wargame Z has *very* few measurable, verifiable elements.
It has units which can be recognized as infantry, cavalry, and artillery
(which were the main unit types at Y); but their movement rates are all
identical, they operate very similarly in the game, and artillery must be
adjacent to an enemy unit to attack, just like the other units. Starting
placement of units on the map is mostly random. The map is highly stylized,
showing only a couple salient features, inexactly placed. The designer
insists, however, that despite the lack of measurable, verifiable connections
with the historical battle, Wargame Z is the last word in realism. He says
that although few, if any, *specific* aspects of the game can be shown to be
consistent with their real-life counterparts, the game *as a whole* simulates
the battle perfectly, in a sort of impressionistic way. Wherever the player
finds a distortion, he can rest assured that it's necessary in order for the
game as a whole to encapsulate all dimensions of the battle--command control,
limited intelligence, lost orders, and everything.
So, is Wargame Z truly a realistic game on the Battle of Y?
Or could one just as well say that chess is a realistic game on the Battle of
Y?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Kevin J. Maroney
>I'm not quite sure where this fits into the current debate, but I can
>think of a few games where the rules are a more-or-less accurate
>representation of the hard factors in a situation, but the soft
>factors are missing or at best minimally represented in the rules.
>Yet these games are converted into significantly more realistic
>simulations by the addition of an umpire and/or multiple players per
>side, with limited communication. I'm thinking of games like MBT and
>Wooden Ships and Iron Men.
John Hill's designers notes to _East Front Tank Leader_ discuss how
the game is almost completely focused on the "soft factors" issues of
World War II tank combat. Recommended highly.
Kevin J. Maroney
>And modeling of "soft" factors is an art, rather than a science,
>because it's all hypothetical. So it's very easy to get them "wrong".
Depends. The question of which tanks had what radio technology, for
instance, is not hypothetical, and disparities in communications
technology had a tremendous impact on the battles of World War II.
John Hwang
> Here's the other part of my hypothetical question, which I didn't
> have time to post last time:
>
> Wargame Z also purports to be a realistic wargame on the famous
> Battle of Y. But unlike Wargame X, Wargame Z has *very* few
> measurable, verifiable elements. It has units which can be
> recognized as infantry, cavalry, and artillery (which were the
> main unit types at Y); but their movement rates are all identical,
> they operate very similarly in the game, and artillery must be
> adjacent to an enemy unit to attack, just like the other units.
Assume similar "liberties" taken with the OOB.
> Starting placement of units on the map is mostly random. The map
> is highly stylized, showing only a couple salient features,
> inexactly placed. The designer insists, however, that despite
> the lack of measurable, verifiable connections with the historical
> battle, Wargame Z is the last word in realism. He says that
> although few, if any, *specific* aspects of the game can be shown
> to be consistent with their real-life counterparts, the game *as
> a whole* simulates the battle perfectly, in a sort of
> impressionistic way. Wherever the player finds a distortion,
> he can rest assured that it's necessary in order for
> the game as a whole to encapsulate all dimensions of the battle--
> command control, limited intelligence, lost orders, and everything.
As a test of "realism", I'd like to have a way of verifying this. So
I'd like to know what research went into the determination of how
these "soft factors" were analyzed and the incorporated.
> So, is Wargame Z truly a realistic game on the Battle of Y?
This is a *very* interesting question.
What Wargame Z simulates is a variety of combats, where a commander has
a certain total force level against a certain enemy force level. This
is basically a "soft factors" simulation. But the problem is that
the "fudge" factor is so high, it looks nothing like Waterloo or
Manassass or the Crimea. And in fact could quite reasonably be taken
(or mistaken) to be any one of them. I would say there's a not
inconsiderable amount of dishonesty in the way the publisher and
designer describes their game. Particularly in terms of the way that
wargaming looks at things which purport to be "realistic". That said,
I'm sure a very *detailed*, *complex* game can be made along these
lines.
So my gut feeling on this is: absolutely *NOT*, if we're talking about
a single battle.
However, if we are talking about an entire campaign of continental and
daily/weekly scale in pre-industrial times, then this works much better
and I belive it may be quite realistic. At this level of abstraction,
units will move roughly equal distances because that's how logistics
were in those times. Similarly, artillery is relatively short-ranged
due to the poor QC of cannon manufacturing.
> Or could one just as well say that chess is a realistic game on the
> Battle of Y?
Unlikely. Chess is complete information, non-random, with absolute
Command, Intelligence, and attack efficiency (that is, if one attacks,
one is *guaranteed* victory over the opposing unit). Mobility is far
too high for certain units, and terrain plays no factor whatsoever.
In Game Z presumably, there is a high degree of uncertainty in the
combat result, much less whether the unit even engages the enemy with
whatever command I am able to exert.
John Hwang
> John Hwang <j_h...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >And modeling of "soft" factors is an art, rather than a science,
> >because it's all hypothetical. So it's very easy to get
> >them "wrong".
>
> Depends. The question of which tanks had what radio technology, for
> instance, is not hypothetical, and disparities in communications
> technology had a tremendous impact on the battles of World War II.
True, but this is recorded and something which is probably measurable
by comparison between units with/without such technology.
I'm thinking of truly soft stuff like Command, Control, Intelligence,
Morale, etc.
Kevin J. Maroney
>kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
>> Depends. The question of which tanks had what radio technology, for
>> instance, is not hypothetical, and disparities in communications
>> technology had a tremendous impact on the battles of World War II.
>
>True, but this is recorded and something which is probably measurable
>by comparison between units with/without such technology.
>I'm thinking of truly soft stuff like Command, Control, Intelligence,
>Morale, etc.
Well, inter-troop communications are a vital part of Command &
Control. The specific reason I brought up radios was, again, a
reference to John Hill's _Tank Leader_ system, which tries to model
battlefield C3I in a "realistic" manner.