Basic Problems With Event-Based Game Systems (Long)

[Paul Minson]

I've been following with great interest all the recent discussion about
realism and event versus D=r*t game designs, especially the 'Nap Standards
of Realism' thread. In several instances the following basic problem has
been skirted around, but never actually addressed by the event-based folks.
I am interested to see the response to this concern. First, so people don't
argue the wrong points, let me state my position:
1. I accept that MCM or D=r*t game designs have serious limitations to
realism inherent in their mechanics.
2. I accept that causality chains make sense, and are how humans _remember_
their experiences. (I distinguish this from how we _experience_ things,
because in attempting to communicate experiences to another person, we rely
on our memory. Written history suffers from this problem--we almost never
have accounts recorded as things occur, but rather recollections of what
happened that may be a few minutes or many years old in memory, and so
accounts are colored by human memory mechanisms. But please let's save any
philosophy-of-the-mind debate for another thread.)
3. I accept that a single causality chain can be effectively portrayed in a
game system without reference to time. At this point, I need to define
causality chain, and the system it acts in. A causality chain is an input
cause and the cascade of effects it has. For instance, the cause might be
that the commander orders his troops to advance toward the enemy. The
effects could be that the troops stumble into a minefield, take casualties,
and rout. (Note that if the troops advance within range of the enemy, and
the enemy commander decides to open fire, that order to fire is a _new_
cause [NOT an effect], with a new causality chain--the only requirement in
the game system is that the sequence of the various chains are in the
correct order, such as the troops advance into range first, then the enemy
opens fire and causes casualties.) The system a causality chain acts in is
the collection of units and terrain which is acted on by the effects of the
chain.

Having defined that, here is the first problem: In an event-based system,
how do you correctly sort out the interactions between multiple causality
chains without using time?
Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose you have two friendly forces
operating on the battlefield or wargame table. Let's call them battlegroup
A and battlegroup B. Each battlegroup has its commander, and then there is
an overall commander giving orders to the battlegroup commanders. Group A
advances on the left, group B advances on the right, and there are enemy
troops deployed hidden in front of both. There is intervening terrain
between A and B that prevents A's commander from instantly seeing B's
status, B from instantly seeing A's status, and the overall commander is
accompanying battlegroup A, and so can see A but not B (in other words, a
communications system with its inherent delays is necessary to control and
coordinate the actions of A and B). Group A encounters a superior enemy as
it advances, and becomes engaged. The commander of A requests
reinforcements from the overall commander, who sends a message to B's
commander to stop his advance and come to the aid of battlegroup A. What B
actually ends up doing is dependent on timing, and here's why:
If B advances into contact before the message arrives to help A, it will
also be engaged and unable to help. If the message gets there before B
makes contact, B's commander would stop its advance and start moving to
assist A. So the relative positions in time of A's potentially becoming
engaged and B's potentially becoming engaged would determine whether B can
help A. In a standard event driven game, the advance to contact of A and B
work fine without reference to time, so long as they are completely
independent engagements. But as soon as any cause generated by one group
(the order to B to come help) that has an effect on the other group,
suddenly time flow is important to determine the effect of that cause. It
is not necessarily critical to know absolute time passage, but it is for
sure critical to know relative time passage. (Did A become engaged with
enough time before B would become engaged for B to get the message and
instead help A?) Without synchronizing events in time relative to one
another, the effects of this sequence of events cannot be determined! So at
first glance, it appears event-based systems like PK (systems where time is
ignored during play and resolution) are unable to actually simulate complex
cause and effect cycles, but can only mimic the results (a random factor
such as a card draw or impetus roll entirely determines whether B gets into
contact before A needs help, rather than the command structure and
time/distance relationships). MCM or D=r*t games share this problem, but
only for events that occur within a turn. The turns automatically fix
events in time relative to the events of other turns.

The second problem is less concerning but more interesting. The fact is,
there is an artificial relative time in event-based games like PK, that is
induced by information available to the player. Here's what it is:
Given a unit in melee with an enemy unit, at some random point dictated by
dice and cards, a melee resolution card is drawn, and the outcome is decided
in favor of the enemy. From that moment on, all actions allowed by cards
and dice are taken by both players in light of the lost melee. In other
words, both players decisions on everything subsequent to that event are
influenced by that event outcome. So in effect, that event is fixed in time
relative to the other events, because information about its result can
affect all those subsequent events, and couldn't affect prior events. The
cards lend uncertainty to what subsequent events and decisions may occur,
but they cannot prevent the impact of the melee resolution information on
subsequent player decisions. So you get a fixed time sequence in the game,
but one that is uncontrolled for in the design. It is possible in some
event systems to focus on one event sequence on part of the board and
resolve it before moving on to other parts of the board, but in doing so
you fix that event's position in time ahead of all subsequent events, and
implicitly force everything else to stand still for as long it would take
for resolution of that one event (or event chain) and for information of its
outcome to be communicated to all troops on the board. MCM or D=r*t games
share this problem with event-based games, but the effects are not as
extreme because the time-based turns limit the number of events that can be
resolved for one situation before the situations on other parts of the board
are also compelled to resolve events. A good example of an interesting
mechanic to reduce the effect of this problem is in the movement and combat
resolution of Norm Koger's computer wargame 'The Operational Art of War'. I
won't describe it here, but it might have some possible applications to the
gaming table in a modified or simplified form.

In conclusion, it seems to me that event-based designs have their own set of
serious limiters to realism. No objective measure of the merit or relative
'realism' of the two approaches to game design exists, so the argument will
likely never be settled. I certainly don't see conclusive evidence for
claims by either camp that their way is better, only that they are
different.

--Paul

[Scott L. Karakas]

Paul,

It is obvious that you put a lot of thought and effort into your post, so
please don't be offended if my answer is a somewhat shorter. Besides, I'm sure
that BJ, JG or someone else will provide a much more comprehensive response.

Paul Minson wrote:

(Lots of interesting ideas and examples snipped.)

> It is not necessarily critical to know absolute time passage, but it is for
> sure critical to know relative time passage. (Did A become engaged with
> enough time before B would become engaged for B to get the message and
> instead help A?) Without synchronizing events in time relative to one
> another, the effects of this sequence of events cannot be determined! So at
> first glance, it appears event-based systems like PK (systems where time is
> ignored during play and resolution) are unable to actually simulate complex
> cause and effect cycles, but can only mimic the results (a random factor
> such as a card draw or impetus roll entirely determines whether B gets into
> contact before A needs help, rather than the command structure and
> time/distance relationships). MCM or D=r*t games share this problem, but
> only for events that occur within a turn. The turns automatically fix
> events in time relative to the events of other turns.

SK: This is also what happens during one turn in Piquet, which represents 30
minutes on the battlefield. Each of the opposing commanders desires for a
series of events to happen on the battlefield, and although their desires
conflict, some of those events will even actually occur within the current
30-minute turn! The major difference between PK and a MCM system is that the
commanders will not be able to rely on the construct that, once every "30
minutes" (to keep our examples consistent first one side will be able to move,
and then the other, then each side will fire missiles in a predetermined
sequence, then melee will take place (again in a predetermined sequence), and
finally the results will be tallied and morale will be determined, before the
whole cycle begins again, exactly in the same order, every "30 minutes"!
Doesn't that seem to you like an assurance no field commander *ever* enjoyed?

In PK, events still relate to each other on the field in the ways that you
describe - the army commander sees a threat in one sector of the battlefield,
and tries to maneuver units from another part of the field to meet the threat.
These events also occur within the time-frame of a "30-minute" turn. The
difference is that in PK, the commander can't always rest assured that he/she
(I'll just use "he" from now on) won't have to worry about further enemy troop
movements for another "30 minutes," because the "movement phase" is already
over for that turn! Why would you see this construct as more problemmatic than
the MCM one?

> The second problem is less concerning but more interesting. The fact is,
> there is an artificial relative time in event-based games like PK, that is
> induced by information available to the player. Here's what it is:
> Given a unit in melee with an enemy unit, at some random point dictated by
> dice and cards, a melee resolution card is drawn, and the outcome is decided
> in favor of the enemy. From that moment on, all actions allowed by cards
> and dice are taken by both players in light of the lost melee. In other
> words, both players decisions on everything subsequent to that event are

> influenced by that event outcome. (More interesting stuff snipped.)

I don't know if you are basing your reasoning on actual experience with PK, or
only on what you have heard others say about it, but you are incorrectly
presenting the system as far more deterministic than it actually is. With a
few exceptions like routs and scenario-based actions like uncontrolled charges,
activities are not "dictated" by the cards, any more than they are "dictated"
in a MCM system by the fact that the "melee phase" has come around once more in
the turn sequence! In neither case is the commander "forced" to initiate a
melee or other action. In the MCM game, he may choose to melee or not, but
will not be able to initiate a melee again until exactly "30 minutes" later,
during his portion of the next turn's "melee phase." In PK, he may likewise
choose to melee or not, but he cannot be quite as certain about when his next
opportunity to initiate a melee will arise - perhaps again during the next "30
minute" turn, perhaps not. Of course, once the decision to initiate a melee
has in fact been made, of course future events will take place in light of the
lost (or won!) melee *in both cases*. One sytem is no more deterministic than
the other - it is the *opportunities* for taking action that are less
predictable in PK!

And yes, the uncertainty about when those opportunities will arise requires a
different kind of planning and decision-making process than in IGO-UGO
systems. Limiting the amount of available impetus in PK is *designed* to focus
the commander's attention on some parts of the battlefield at the expense of
some others. Just as on an historical battlefield the commander "can't be
everywhere at once," the same is true on the tabletop in PK. However, the
choice of where to spend his precious resources still rests squarely on the
shoulders of the commander, and he may decide to consolidate his resources or
spread them out - but then he must live with the results of his choices! He
may indeed "get away" with his decision or he may get "burned," but he
certainly won't be able to make clockwork calculations and predictions based on
the god-like knowledge that the enemy forces had "already moved that turn"!

Paul, I agree wholeheartedly that event-based systems like PK and MCM systems
represent differing abstractions, neither of which perfectly models the
historical battlefield environment. I also agree completely that both systems
contain inherent flaws and distortions, and will appeal differently to
different individuals. Personally, I think that we historical wargamers are
currently living in "the best of times," because there are so many different
systems out there! However, your critiques do suggest a basic unfamiliarity
with how PK actually works, both in practice and in theory, so I think that you
have yet to demonstrate any real "flaws" in the system. Play a game or two
with it some day... you may be pleasantly suprised! Or don't, and enjoy gaming
your own favorite ruleset(s) instead!! :-)

Cheers,
Scott K.

[Scott L. Karakas]

Oooops! I should have written: "perhaps again during the *same* 30-minute
turn." Sorry for any confusion!

Scott K.

[Paul Minson]

Scott,
Thanks for the detailed, well done response. My intention was not to pick on
PK, although perhaps it seemed so. PK is simply the default example of an
event-based game on the newsgroup these days. My intention was to refute the
assertion made repeatedly by the event-based advocates in the debate between
BJ, JG, MDLM, and others, that time could be ignored in an event-based game,
and that the player represents the command structure in PK. I actually think
PK has a lot of interesting ideas. I have read everything on the
www.piquet.com website and much of what is on the www.piquet.org web site,
including all of the battle reports there for all the periods. Unfortunately,
I will not be able to play it until either I can build a couple of ancients
armies or BJ and company release a ruleset for the 1967-2000 period.
I don't see the PK construct as being _more_ problematic than MCM,
just problematic in a different way. In MCM, the rigid sequence induces too
much predictability for the player to take advantage of. In PK, according to
my understanding of it from the PK web sites and posts here, some of the
cause-and-effect portions of command/control that determine the order of
events on a real battlefield has been replaced by a system of dice rolls and
the randomness of shuffled cards which mimics possible outcomes of the
cause-effect cycles in command/control. This removes some amount of
predictability that real commanders had. For instance, a commander in
Napoleon's army would probably know roughly how far away a certain unit was
from him, and would therefore be able to estimate very roughly how long it
would take a messenger to reach that unit (or how long it would take the
commander himself to ride there and issue the order). At a minimum, the
commander would know the soonest a message could get through, simply by
knowing how fast horses can run. So although he couldn't say exactly how long
it would take, he would have a ballpark estimate around which to plan (e.g.,
if I send a message now, the unit should receive the orders 30-60 minutes from
now) and that estimate will be close to the actual result most of the time
(the old normal probability distribution--things further from the most likely
outcome are less likely to happen). So one messenger to the unit might take
35 minutes in transit, another 52 minutes, and one 45 minutes. One messenger
in fifty might get waylaid by the enemy, or one in twenty might get lost and
never deliver the orders, but those outcomes are relatively unlikely, and
would only happen rarely, so the commander could expect in most cases the
30-60 minute travel time. Further, if a commander's units have been having
communication problems due to a shortage of messengers, he can plan for that
to continue. It strikes me as being difficult to anticipate much about the
future in PK, because impetus die rolls (and to a lesser degree shuffled
cards) do not become more predictable based on past experience. So it seems
to me that MCM is too predictable, while PK (by eliminating some cause and
effect associated with command/control) is a little too unpredictable. My
expectation is that the holy grail of wargaming lies somewhere in between, but
unfortunately to treat the probabilities best would probably require computer
assistance.

--Paul

[ToySldr]

Paul - I would like to add some general comments on your questions to those
already made by Scott. Your first concern, reflected in your example of the
surprise attack on two formations advancing side-by-side but blocked from each
other's view by terrain, was how you keep the interactions sorted out between
multiple causality chains. This points out another basic difference in the
event/causality chain design and the turn based design. In the basic turn based
designed two players on the same side would carry out their actions essentially
independently of each other, in terms of game mechanics. If the designer
desires there to be more interaction and coordination than that provided by the
"time box" of the turn, then an additional mechanic must be included to do
that. Otherwise all actions in a turn are quasi-simultaneous in terms of time.
In the event based design we have been discussing the initiative system links
all the players and controls which sections of the causality chain are
evaluated and for how many events. It probably would be more descriptive if I
would have called this a causality web rather than chain to more accurately
convey the relationship. This is one of the prime advantages of the concept in
that all player's actions are linked from the top down and as a result, the
event sequence is always coordinated without additional mechanics. The example
you gave is an excellent one in that surprise engagements are very hard to pull
of on the tabletop. With the event based system it is easily handled by
reducing the initiative to the surprised side once the trap is sprung to
reflect the confusion factor. That sides initiative is then gradually brought
back to normal to reflect the recovery from the surprise. As a result the
surprise may be very effective or not effective at all, but this is decided in
the playing out of the event sequence, not pre-determined.

Your second question was concerning whether or not the event based process
would provide a peek into the future by resolving some events on one side of
the table prior to those on the other, thus providing "free" information. The
assumption you have made is that the decision of which event to evaluate is
completely independent of the tabletop world and it is not. Because the
evaluation of an event requires command initiative and because this is limited,
the result is that the events that are most important to the commanders are the
events that are typically evaluated first thereby providing the most critical
information as soon as possible. In a sense the event is like Heisenberg's Cat.
It is neither dead or alive until we look. We don't know if the melee is
resolved and who won until we ask for the information. While it could be argued
that when we receive the information is not the same as when the melee was
resolved, it is the moment that the commander begins to deal with the outcome
and our objective is to model the commander's flow of information.

I would agree totally with your assessment that both design concepts have their
own "limiters to realism" and that the argument on "realism" will probably
never be settled. I feel that both systems can provide equally valid "realism."
I do however feel that the event based, causality chain (web) approach can
provide greater efficiency of the gamer's time, which I view as a benefit.

Jim

[Martin Rapier]

Paul Minson <pmi...@rt66.com> wrote in article
<7uqe6k$r...@news.or.intel.com>...
{snip}

> I am interested to see the response to this concern. First, so people
don't
> argue the wrong points, let me state my position:
> 1. I accept that MCM or D=r*t game designs have serious limitations to
> realism inherent in their mechanics.

{snip long and interesting post}

I read an interesting article by Marcus Watney a few years ago where he
argued very convincingly that despite the current perception of MCM as 'old
fashioned', 'unrealistic' or whatever, for certain kinds of conflict at
certain levels, it was probably a better simulation of reality than
alternative mechanisms (like impulse based, event based, simultaneous plots
or whatever). I suspect the main problem with MCM has been its broad brush
application to wargames rules at all levels - the higher the level of the
game, the more appropriate (and simpler to manage!) it becomes. All designs
are a tradeoff, but it would appear to me that once you reach the level of
Corps/Army level multi-day battles (mainly thinking of moderns here) MCM is
actually a relatively simple and elegant mechanism to represent the
decision making processes at that level - it is probably is not a terribly
good idea lower down the command chain however.

Having said that, my current project 'Arnhem in an Afternoon' uses brigade
sized stands, day long turns, but alternate unit activation...... I think I
have been converted back to MCM by playing 'Square Bashing' too much, where
it really works rather well!

Cheers
Martin.

[Scott L. Karakas]

Paul,

I appreciate your clarifications and follow-up. I think that Jim Getz has already
done a far better job than I could, of answering your hypothetical concerns with
event-based wargaming systems. I'll add just a few comments of my own, and then I
will be finished with this "hypothetical" discussion.

Paul Minson wrote:

> My intention was not to pick on PK, although perhaps it seemed so.

SK: Indeed it did, because you kept mentioning PK by name, and because you
indicated that you believed that you had discovered some "basic flaws" in that
specific ruleset. I maintained then, as I do now, that your concerns were based on
a basic lack of understanding about the rules and how they work. (Some snippage.)

> My intention was to refute the assertion made repeatedly by the event-based
> advocates in the debate between BJ, JG, MDLM, and others, that time could be
> ignored in an event-based game, and that the player represents the command
> structure in PK. I actually think PK has a lot of interesting ideas. I have
> read everything on the
> www.piquet.com website and much of what is on the www.piquet.org web site,
> including all of the battle reports there for all the periods. Unfortunately,
> I will not be able to play it until either I can build a couple of ancients
> armies or BJ and company release a ruleset for the 1967-2000 period.

SK: I have followed these debates closely, even when they have become (IMHO)
rather absurd and ridiculous, and I have *never* seen BJ or JG state that time
could be *ignored* in an event-based system like PK. I have seen some very
persuasive arguments that the experience of time is highly *subjective* in battle,
and that this can be better modeled in an event-based system like PK, than in a
strict MCM system. I have also seen it argued that, while there is general
agreement about *large-scale* timing factors (infantry can only march so far in 30
minutes) and the *relative* timing of events (infantry should move more slowly than
infantry), there is much less agreement about micro-scale events like the precise
number of yards/meters infantry should be able to march every 30 minutes, under
battlefield conditions. I have only seen two people state that "time can be
ignored in an event-based game." The first was made by a very vocal pro-MCM
advocate, and was a clear misstatement of the position taken by BJ and JG. It was
corrected in a follow-up post. The second was yours, made above. So the only
people who have said that "time can be ignored in an event-based game" are
advocates of the opposing position!

> For instance, a commander in Napoleon's army would probably know roughly how far
> away a certain unit was from him, and would therefore be able to estimate very

> roughly how long itwould take a messenger to reach that unit (or how long it

> would take the commander himself to ride there and issue the order). At a
> minimum, the
> commander would know the soonest a message could get through, simply by
> knowing how fast horses can run. So although he couldn't say exactly how long
> it would take, he would have a ballpark estimate around which to plan (e.g.,
> if I send a message now, the unit should receive the orders 30-60 minutes from
> now) and that estimate will be close to the actual result most of the time
> (the old normal probability distribution--things further from the most likely

> outcome are less likely to happen). (Much snippage).

SK: And this is exactly what the commander would know in a Les Grognards battle!
He can precisely predict the *minimum* time it would take for an opponent to
perform an action. He also is aware of the cards remaining in his own deck, *the
cards that his opponent has already used this turn,* and the limits of the range of
possible die rolls for impetus, so he can calculate the minimums and probable
maximums necessary for his plans. What he can't comfortably predict is who is
going to win the next impetus roll(s), so his plans should take into account a
certain amount of risk (Will my orders get through in time? Will the
sub-commanders execute them in time?). The skilled PK commander can come up with a
good educated guess regarding the *likelihood* that his plan will succeed, but he
usually doesn't have a *guarantee* of success. In other words, he is making
exactly the same sort of "ballpark" estimates you are talking about, based on his
observations, calculations and "experience"!

> It strikes me as being difficult to anticipate much about the
> future in PK, because impetus die rolls (and to a lesser degree shuffled
> cards) do not become more predictable based on past experience.

SK: I can think of few tactical "calculations" that could be less well-advised
than "I pulled it off last time, so my plan is guaranteed to succeed again this
time," either in PK or in "real life"!

Paul, I appreciate the obvious effort and thought that has gone into your posts,
but my conclusion is the same as before: some direct knowledge of how to actually
play the rules you are critiquing would be immeasurably helpful (after all, it
worked for Ty Beard!) As you have already admitted, you haven't actually played PK
or even read the rules, so I find myself in a similar position to someone who tries
to have a detailed theoretical discussion about baseball with someone who has read
several reports about the game, and perhaps even an article or two on "the theory
of baseball," but who has never actually seen a game played, or even read through
the rule book. I see this as essentially a pointless exercise on my part, for it
still seems to me that all of the concerns you have expressed thus far with the PK
version of an event-based ruleset could be resolved by simply reading (and perhaps
even playing) the rules. I hope that you are able to do so some day, and I will be
happy to discuss any concerns you may have at that time. In the meantime, good
luck with the rules that you do play! :-)

Scott K.

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <01bf1ed9$708d2ce0$b110...@ad1mer.shef.ac.uk>, "Martin says...

>
>Paul Minson <pmi...@rt66.com> wrote in article
><7uqe6k$r...@news.or.intel.com>...
>{snip}

>> I am interested to see the response to this concern. First, so people
>don't
>> argue the wrong points, let me state my position:
>> 1. I accept that MCM or D=r*t game designs have serious limitations to
>> realism inherent in their mechanics.

>{snip long and interesting post}
>
>I read an interesting article by Marcus Watney a few years ago where he
>argued very convincingly that despite the current perception of MCM as 'old
>fashioned', 'unrealistic' or whatever, for certain kinds of conflict at
>certain levels, it was probably a better simulation of reality than
>alternative mechanisms (like impulse based, event based, simultaneous plots
>or whatever).

BJ: I guess my first question might be, "Who's Marcus Watney???"

> I suspect the main problem with MCM has been its broad brush
>application to wargames rules at all levels - the higher the level of the
>game, the more appropriate (and simpler to manage!) it becomes. All designs
>are a tradeoff, but it would appear to me that once you reach the level of
>Corps/Army level multi-day battles (mainly thinking of moderns here) MCM is
>actually a relatively simple and elegant mechanism to represent the
>decision making processes at that level - it is probably is not a terribly
>good idea lower down the command chain however.

BJ: The problem is, of course, that most miniature recreational wargames are
single day, corps level and below, engagements. You're quite right that at a
very high level, such as Army Level, that events are already so abstracted that
there are fewer arguments relating to 'time and awareness" issues to be made. It
is still true that turn mechanics of a somewhat more interesting sort than a
pure MCM might add interest to a game even at the strategic level. It is also
true that MCM seems simpler because it is familiar and its distortions are so
accepted as to be invisible to many.

>
>Having said that, my current project 'Arnhem in an Afternoon' uses brigade
>sized stands, day long turns, but alternate unit activation...... I think I
>have been converted back to MCM by playing 'Square Bashing' too much, where
>it really works rather well!

BJ: The ultimate question of, "Is it fun?", remains the final arbiter for many
a gamer, as it should be.

[Scott L. Karakas]

Sigh... I did it again:

Scott L. Karakas wrote:

> I have also seen it argued that, while there is general agreement about
> *large-scale* timing factors (infantry can only march so far in 30 minutes) and the
> *relative* timing of events (infantry should move more slowly than infantry),

Of course, I intended to say that infantry should move more slowly than *cavalry*!
Once again, sorry for any confusion.

I continue to maintain that it's advisable to have *some* working knowledge of a
ruleset before attempting to point out "basic flaws" in it's design. Further, if one
is trying to argue that there are "basic problems" with an entire *class* of wargames,

it seems reasonable to expect one to demonstrate a fair degree of familiarity with
*several* of them, including the ability to cite *applicable* examples! I've made the

same point in this forum before, and IMHO it seems like an obvious and reasonable one.

In any case, I hope that each gamer will continue to enjoy the rulesets that he/she
*is* actually familiar with!

Scott K.

[Paul Minson]

Scott L. Karakas wrote in message <381450EF...@uncg.edu>...

>Paul Minson wrote:
>
>> My intention was not to pick on PK, although perhaps it seemed so.
>
>SK: Indeed it did, because you kept mentioning PK by name, and because you
>indicated that you believed that you had discovered some "basic flaws" in
that
>specific ruleset. I maintained then, as I do now, that your concerns were
based on
>a basic lack of understanding about the rules and how they work. (Some
snippage.)

Scott, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me. I mentioned
PK by name simply because of the reason stated--it's the first game cited
when this debate comes up. One of the examples I included comes from
Crossfire, actually. (It doesn't help that PK advocates are a pretty vocal
bunch on the forum though.)

Scott, the particular post sequence that most caught my eye about time in
wargames occurred around 10/22 between ToySldr and JG. Another section of
the discussion that was pretty clear was on 10/21 between the same folks.
I've included a relevant post below (courtesy of deja news):

Begin quote------------------------------------------------------------
>TD: I am all for using event driven mechanics! My question is, how do you
>propose to manage the tempo/actions and sequence of events for all the
units
>involved if you ignore the standard of time? What measurable device are you
>substuting to keep all in sync? I REALLY am interested in your ideas here.

JG: I am using a variation of the Piquet command system but with substantial
changes for large numbers of players (I am assuming at least 3 or 4 per side
as a minimum). The sequencing of the players and their use of initiative
provide part of the answer. The other part is in the use of my horizon
movement system which bases movement not on turns or an artificial construct
of time but on the actual terrain on the table top and ties movement
directly to the potential for command events that the terrain can cause as
well as other admittedly artificial horizons that trigger command events.
Horizon movement is described in CdePK if you have a copy in the store. My
commander sequence is not available outside of the "lab" but has been play
tested and is working although I am still refining the details (ain't it
always the way).

The important conceptual change to make in this approach that all events are
equal in potential importance, but not equal in time of duration. Where we
get into problems with the time thing is that we try to model events that
last less than a minute (a volley) and those that last 20 or 30 minutes (a
move to contact) and jam them all into the same "event" (a turn). It doesn't
work. The turn is artificial to start out with and if you try and do the
time thing accurately you either end up with huge mechanics (at least in my
experience) or we start making simplifying assumptions that in effect remove
time from the equation any way - "Well it's not A volley, its a volume of
fire delivered over some period during the enemy's approach..." Having gone
that far in rationalization, we might as well go the rest of the way, toss
the clock over board and just deal with the event - he advanced, this caused
you to open fire.
Jim

End
Quote--------------------------------------------------------------------

"toss the clock overboard" sounds a lot like ignoring time to me. I could
be reading it wrong, but that's the impression I get. This was the point I
was interested in discussing.

>SK: And this is exactly what the commander would know in a Les Grognards
battle!
>He can precisely predict the *minimum* time it would take for an opponent
to
>perform an action. He also is aware of the cards remaining in his own
deck, *the
>cards that his opponent has already used this turn,* and the limits of the
range of
>possible die rolls for impetus, so he can calculate the minimums and
probable
>maximums necessary for his plans. What he can't comfortably predict is who
is
>going to win the next impetus roll(s), so his plans should take into
account a
>certain amount of risk (Will my orders get through in time? Will the
>sub-commanders execute them in time?). The skilled PK commander can come
up with a
>good educated guess regarding the *likelihood* that his plan will succeed,
but he
>usually doesn't have a *guarantee* of success. In other words, he is
making
>exactly the same sort of "ballpark" estimates you are talking about, based
on his
>observations, calculations and "experience"!

This sounds encouraging.

>> It strikes me as being difficult to anticipate much about the
>> future in PK, because impetus die rolls (and to a lesser degree shuffled
>> cards) do not become more predictable based on past experience.
>
>SK: I can think of few tactical "calculations" that could be less
well-advised
>than "I pulled it off last time, so my plan is guaranteed to succeed again
this
>time," either in PK or in "real life"!

This was not what kind of predictability I was referring to. I was
referring to things like characteristics of particular subordinant
commanders or units. You might or might not know going into a battle
whether a particular commander is aggressive in carrying out orders quickly,
or cautious and dallying, but over the course of the fight it becomes
apparent if a commander is an extreme in either direction. And history
records commanders being placed into certain points in the battle plan not
because their unit was necessarily superior, but because the overall
commander knew the likelihood of getting the response he wanted from that
commander in that position in the plan would be higher. MCM games tend to
leave this type of occurance up to the player to simulate, or include
special rules for the affected unit/commander. Is there a mechanism in PK
to accomplish this sort of thing?

Scott, I appreciate your patience with me. I am not trying to convert
people one way or the other. I simply want to expand my understanding of
the contrasts between the two design philosophies and between the existing
implementations of those philosophies. Your comments are welcome, and I do
not think it has been pointless. I have benefitted from the information you
provided, and there are probably others lurking about who have also found
our the discussion useful.

Thanks, and happy gaming!
--Paul

[Scott L. Karakas]

Paul,

I have noticed, and do truly appreciate, the gentlemanly way in which you have
engaged this particular debate.

Paul Minson wrote:

> Scott, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me. I mentioned
> PK by name simply because of the reason stated--it's the first game cited
> when this debate comes up. One of the examples I included comes from
> Crossfire, actually. (It doesn't help that PK advocates are a pretty vocal
> bunch on the forum though.)

SK: Why? Does it somehow render our opinions less valid? Are you aware of
how this whole thing got started? After having watched our favorite ruleset
repeatedly derided by people who had never even seen the rules, much less
played them, some of us have indeed become quite vocal in its support. Yes,
it's true that some of us may have become oversealous in making certain that
each and every innacurate statement is thoroughly refuted. But believe me, it
also gets rather tiring to read two years worth of disparaging and dismissive
remarks, especially when those making the comments have usually never even read
the rules! Check the r.g.m.h. archives - you will see that the stridency of
the comments made by PK supporters only arose *after* a period of negative
remarks made by PK detractors. So now that the shoe is on the other foot, some
of those same people have been complaining that PK supporters are "too vocal."
Well, we reap what we sow!

BTW, thanks for clarifying that you were also citing Crossfire as another
example of an event-based game. That helps to clarify the quite a bit! In
citing an example, it's even better to mention the source for the example at
the time you first cite it! :-)

> "toss the clock overboard" sounds a lot like ignoring time to me. I could
> be reading it wrong, but that's the impression I get. This was the point I
> was interested in discussing.

SK: Paul, in last Saturday's post you said that:

"My intention was to refute the assertion made repeatedly by BJ, JG, MDLM, and
others, that time could be ignored in an event-based game, and that the player

represents the command structure in PK."

So now you've backed down from claiming that a number of people have
*repeatedly* made this assertion, to citing an "impression" you got from a
single discussion. While I could argue that the single statement you are
citing from JG is in fact a long, long way from "repeated assertions" that
"time could be ignored in an event-based game," I'll grant you that one
statement. I'll also grant that Crossfire has indeed done away with the
mechanic of the time-based turn. But PK clearly does *not* do so, and no one,
including Messers. Jones and Getz, has ever claimed that it does. Is it
possible that you have been painting event-based games with a brush that is a
bit overly broad?

> You might or might not know going into a battle whether a particular
> commander is aggressive in carrying out orders quickly, or cautious and
> dallying, but over the course of the fight it becomes apparent if a commander
> is an extreme in either direction. And history records commanders being
> placed into certain points in the battle plan not because their unit was
> necessarily superior, but because the overall
> commander knew the likelihood of getting the response he wanted from that
> commander in that position in the plan would be higher. MCM games tend to
> leave this type of occurance up to the player to simulate, or include
> special rules for the affected unit/commander. Is there a mechanism in PK
> to accomplish this sort of thing?

SK: Sigh... Yes, there is indeed such a mechanic in PK. During the
preparation for a particular battle, each player rolls a d20 to determine the
quality (Superior, Skilled, Average, Poor, or Abysmal) for the figure
representing his army commander. This gives each army commander a number of
individual characteristics, and accounts for "good days" and "bad days," even
among historically great leaders. Next, each player makes a similar quality
roll for each individual sub-commander in his army (in charge of a Command
Group). In practice, the player may either determine which sub-commander is in
charge of each Command Group *before* assigning the quality rating (more
random), or *after* assigning the quality rating (less random). Again, a
single reading of the rules would have answered this question before it arose.
At the very least, it might have been a good idea to ask questions like this
one (and the others we have discussed) before making definitive pronouncements
about "basic problems" with PK.

Paul, thanks for your kind words, and for your civil tone. I'm truly glad that
you've learned a bit about PK from this discussion, but believe me, you would
learn a lot more from actually reading the rules! In the meantime, you might
be interested in a rather detailed review I wrote for PK, together with its
Archon ancients supplement, on the Society of Ancients web page at:
http://www.soa.org.uk/main/rules/piquetarchon02.htm

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Good gaming to you, as well!

Scott K.

[Scott L. Karakas]

An additional thought, to forestall an inevitable question. ;-)

I previously wrote:

> Yes, there is indeed such a mechanic in PK. During the preparation for a
> particular battle, each player rolls a d20 to determine the quality (Superior,
> Skilled, Average, Poor, or Abysmal) for the figure representing his army
> commander. This gives each army commander a number of individual
> characteristics, and accounts for "good days" and "bad days," even among
> historically great leaders. Next, each player makes a similar quality roll for
> each individual sub-commander in his army (in charge of a Command Group). In
> practice, the player may either determine which sub-commander is in charge of
> each Command Group *before* assigning the quality rating (more random), or
> *after* assigning the quality rating (less random).

SK: I should add that, for individual scenarios or campaigns, players and
referees can assign each army and sub-commander whatever PK rating they feel is
historically justified. Examples may be found in the Napoleonic scenario book for
Les Grognards by Jim Mauro, and the 2nd Punic War scenario book for Archon by
Glenn Pruitt.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[ToySldr]

Boy this is getting confusing! Just to clarify several points here. First JG
(me) is also ToySldr, and yes I do talk to myself a lot but I don't think I
have been guilty of answering my own posts!! Although as much as has gone on
here, I can't be sure. If I did, the more interesting question is whether I
agreed with myself or not...

And for the record, I do remember saying that I ignored time and threw the
clock over board or words to that effect. Hopefully the intent was to
demonstrate that I saw no need to time stamp events in wargames; rather that a
correctly ordered sequence of events provides all the time related information
that is needed. I apologize if this created a falty impression. I also want to
point out that many of the ideas that I have posted lately are concerned with a
new design I am working on that is based on Piquet the philosophy and not with
Piquet the game. This is probably also inherently confusing if you are not
familiar with Piquet the game, but we work in a limiting media here...

Jim (aka JG, aka ToySldr)

[Paul Minson]

Scott L. Karakas wrote in message <3814A28E...@uncg.edu>...
[snip]

Scott, I do not feel it detracts in any way from the validity of your
opinions. I was not following this newsgroup until about a year ago, and
then only started paying attention to non-post WWII information fairly
recently (a few months), so in fact I was not aware of the extent of the
'battle' that has been fought here. Please do not feel that I am in the
PK bashing camp. Rather, I am a long-time gamer with some computer
simulation work under my belt who is very interested in wargame design and I
want to learn more and hear more opinions about the difficulties of
portraying reality given the limits of requirements for a game system (cost,
playability, playing time, fun, etc.) My original post was intended to be
read as general observations about the theory. Perhaps I should have
refrained from citing any example systems at all, to prevent
misunderstanding.

>BTW, thanks for clarifying that you were also citing Crossfire as another
>example of an event-based game. That helps to clarify the quite a bit! In
>citing an example, it's even better to mention the source for the example
at
>the time you first cite it! :-)

Sorry about the oversight. That'll teach me to write a post with two
toddlers hanging on my knee!

>> "toss the clock overboard" sounds a lot like ignoring time to me. I
could
>> be reading it wrong, but that's the impression I get. This was the point
I
>> was interested in discussing.
>
>SK: Paul, in last Saturday's post you said that:
>
>"My intention was to refute the assertion made repeatedly by BJ, JG, MDLM,
and
>others, that time could be ignored in an event-based game, and that the
player
>represents the command structure in PK."
>
>So now you've backed down from claiming that a number of people have
>*repeatedly* made this assertion, to citing an "impression" you got from a
>single discussion. While I could argue that the single statement you are
>citing from JG is in fact a long, long way from "repeated assertions" that
>"time could be ignored in an event-based game," I'll grant you that one
>statement. I'll also grant that Crossfire has indeed done away with the
>mechanic of the time-based turn. But PK clearly does *not* do so, and no
one,
>including Messers. Jones and Getz, has ever claimed that it does. Is it
>possible that you have been painting event-based games with a brush that is
a
>bit overly broad?

Sorry, poor choice of wording on my part. I'm not so much backing down, as
clarifying what I was talking about and failed to say right the first time.
What I should have said was: my intention was to refute the assertion made
repeatedly in the discussion between BJ, JG, MDLM, and others, that time
could be ignored in an event-based game. The discussion went off down a
couple of threads, and I didn't have enough time to check all the search
results on deja news, so I don't know precisely how many times it got
mentioned and discussed. But it stuck out in my mind from the multiple
messages discussing it, and unfortunately a real resolution did not seem to
be reached, so I intended to open the topic for further discussion.

>SK: Sigh... Yes, there is indeed such a mechanic in PK. During the
>preparation for a particular battle, each player rolls a d20 to determine
the
>quality (Superior, Skilled, Average, Poor, or Abysmal) for the figure
>representing his army commander. This gives each army commander a number
of
>individual characteristics, and accounts for "good days" and "bad days,"
even
>among historically great leaders. Next, each player makes a similar
quality
>roll for each individual sub-commander in his army (in charge of a Command
>Group). In practice, the player may either determine which sub-commander
is in
>charge of each Command Group *before* assigning the quality rating (more
>random), or *after* assigning the quality rating (less random). Again, a
>single reading of the rules would have answered this question before it
arose.
>At the very least, it might have been a good idea to ask questions like
this
>one (and the others we have discussed) before making definitive
pronouncements
>about "basic problems" with PK.

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that a single reading of the rules
would help, but as I know no one here who owns them and I would be hard put
to pay about $50 for a ruleset I currently cannot use once I buy it, I am
stuck with information provided by folks like you. I am anxiously awaiting
a PK version for post-WWII, but until then or until I can scrape up some
ancients armies I would have no way to play. Please note, the intent was
basic problems with event-based games in theory, not PK specifically. I did
include the fact that some of the problems I mentioned are in fact common to
both MCM and event game systems, but that apparently did not help to prevent
the appearance of attacking PK.

>Paul, thanks for your kind words, and for your civil tone. I'm truly glad
that
>you've learned a bit about PK from this discussion, but believe me, you
would
>learn a lot more from actually reading the rules! In the meantime, you
might
>be interested in a rather detailed review I wrote for PK, together with its
>Archon ancients supplement, on the Society of Ancients web page at:
>http://www.soa.org.uk/main/rules/piquetarchon02.htm

I actually already did. I found it well written and informative, but like
you say, there's no substitute for reading the rules. Hopefully sometime
soon, I will be able to justify the expense to the wife. Why did I have to
pick an orphan period as my favorite for gaming all those years ago? *sigh*

Oh well, thanks again,
Paul

[Paul Minson]

ToySldr wrote in message <19991025170049...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...

>Boy this is getting confusing! Just to clarify several points here. First
JG
>(me) is also ToySldr, and yes I do talk to myself a lot but I don't think I
>have been guilty of answering my own posts!! Although as much as has gone
on
>here, I can't be sure. If I did, the more interesting question is whether I
>agreed with myself or not...

Hi Jim. I don't know what to tell you--the original posts have rolled off
my server (only keeps 'em a week), so the text I quoted in my message was
the entire body of a message found on deja news that was returned as a
search result.

>
>And for the record, I do remember saying that I ignored time and threw the
>clock over board or words to that effect. Hopefully the intent was to
>demonstrate that I saw no need to time stamp events in wargames; rather
that a
>correctly ordered sequence of events provides all the time related
information
>that is needed. I apologize if this created a falty impression. I also want
to
>point out that many of the ideas that I have posted lately are concerned
with a
>new design I am working on that is based on Piquet the philosophy and not
with
>Piquet the game. This is probably also inherently confusing if you are not
>familiar with Piquet the game, but we work in a limiting media here...

Agreed on the limiting media. And the question I was asking, more or less,
is the following:
How can you manage the interactions of two parallel chains of events that
are unrelated up until the time they interact? Since the time length of
events is not tracked, if you have one chain of events happening on one side
of the map and another chain happening on the other side, and then suddenly
a unit from one chain crosses the board and begins to participate in the
other chain of events, how do you define at what point in the event sequence
it should begin affecting that other chain? If I understood Scott K.
correctly, the PK approach is that the point in real time where the player
actually moves the unit from the one side of the board to the other defines
the game time at which it begins affecting the other event chain. This
implies that the time the unit took to participate in the first chain's
events and then move across the board must be greater than the time the
second chain of events takes to occur up to the point where the unit begins
affecting it. For any game claiming realism, I am wondering if there
shouldn't be some kind of reality check built into the system to prevent the
impossible from occuring, such as a unit participating in events that
require a minimum of 1 hour on one side of the board, then crossing the
board which (for example's sake) takes a minimum of 20 minutes, and then
joining the events of the units on the other side of the board, when only 15
minutes worth of events has occurred on that side. If I understood Scott's
post, the implication in PK for the example I described would be that the
units on the second event chain did their 15 minutes of activity somewhere
during the 1 hour 20 minutes before the first unit arrived, and sat idle
awaiting orders the rest of the time until the unit arrived. If so, I can
see where some gamers would get uncomfortable with that. Crossfire doesn't
seem to have any reality check mechanism I can find, and I've seen where
some gamers get very uncomfortable with apparent "Speedy Gonzales" units
making record time in getting things done. I'm curious to know what you
think--is this a real problem, or does a mechanism exist to get around it
without tracking time's passage?

Thanks for the response and insightful discussion in general,
Paul

[ToySldr]

Paul wrote:

>Crossfire doesn't
>seem to have any reality check mechanism I can find, and I've seen where
>some gamers get very uncomfortable with apparent "Speedy Gonzales" units
>making record time in getting things done. I'm curious to know what you
>think--is this a real problem, or does a mechanism exist to get around it
>without tracking time's passage?

JG: The piece you are missing is that there is a movement limiter in play. In
classic Piquet Bob uses plain old move distances. In CdePK and in the new
system I am working on I use what I call Horizon Movement which in effect uses
the terrain on the tabletop to define a movement grid This gives the potantial
to move great distances but only if the terrain is appropriate to this and
there are no enemy units that can interfere (there is also a random factor
included here but that is another long description!). We are not abandoning
time altogether, we include it in with all the other factors that control when
things happen AND do not require that everything be time stamped as to when it
started, stopped, etc..

Hope this clears up the fog a little.

Jim

[Scott L. Karakas]

Paul,

Once again, thanks for conducting this discussion in such a calm and rational
tone, even when I do become a bit "cranky." :-)

Paul Minson wrote:

> Scott, I do not feel it detracts in any way from the validity of your
> opinions. I was not following this newsgroup until about a year ago, and
> then only started paying attention to non-post WWII information fairly
> recently (a few months), so in fact I was not aware of the extent of the
> 'battle' that has been fought here. Please do not feel that I am in the
> PK bashing camp. Rather, I am a long-time gamer with some computer
> simulation work under my belt who is very interested in wargame design and I
> want to learn more and hear more opinions about the difficulties of
> portraying reality given the limits of requirements for a game system (cost,
> playability, playing time, fun, etc.) My original post was intended to be
> read as general observations about the theory. Perhaps I should have
> refrained from citing any example systems at all, to prevent
> misunderstanding.

SK: Thanks for your explanation - it clears things up tremendously! Sorry for
my over-reaction. As I mentioned previously, I've been reading two years'
worth of posts which have said, in essence, "I've never played PK before, or in
fact even seen the rules, but it's worthless - 'cause its got cards!" I've
personally responded to a number of "newbie" requests for "can anyone recommend
a good set of ancients rules?" (my personal period of choice), with a simple "I
like Archon, the ancients supplement for Piquet," fitting with all of the "I
recommend DBM," "try Armati," and "I think Might of Arms is nice" posts, only
to have someone (and sure as clockwork, there inevitably is at least one)
respond with something like, "Boy, I sure am tired of all these Piquet
'acolytes,' constantly 'proselytizing' their stupid game!"

When I saw your post, my initial reaction was, "Oh, great! There's yet another
one of those wonderful folk who are absolutely certain that PK is worthless,
even though they've never even laid eyes on the rules!" I can clearly see now
that this was not your intention, and I once again apologize for misreading
you, but perhaps you can also see how I might have jumped to the conclusion
that it was. I would certainly not have assumed this if either the initial
post had been as clear as its subject heading in limiting itself to a
theoretical discussion of event-based systems in general, or had asked your
excellent questions about how PK worked *before* beginning a treatise on the
"basic flaws" in the rules. Two different subjects for two different posts,
perhaps?

> Sorry, poor choice of wording on my part. I'm not so much backing down, as
> clarifying what I was talking about and failed to say right the first time.
> What I should have said was: my intention was to refute the assertion made
> repeatedly in the discussion between BJ, JG, MDLM, and others, that time
> could be ignored in an event-based game. The discussion went off down a
> couple of threads, and I didn't have enough time to check all the search
> results on deja news, so I don't know precisely how many times it got
> mentioned and discussed. But it stuck out in my mind from the multiple
> messages discussing it, and unfortunately a real resolution did not seem to
> be reached, so I intended to open the topic for further discussion.

SK: I still think that you are conflating two or more different discussions
here. Jim has indeed discussed the possibility of having no time measurement
attached to a wargaming "turn," but as he explained in his follow-up post, this
was in the context of a *new* set of rules he was contemplating creating.
OTOH, Bob has talked about the subjectivity of experienced time, as well as the
artificial nature and limitations of the standard x-minute "turn" (especially
when used as an "absolute" marker of events), but has never actually proposed
doing away with it. A further debate on these issues would indeed be
interesting. Rereading your initial post, I can clearly see that it indeed
began down that path, but then it somehow veered into a discussion of the
"flaws" in the mechanics of a system you admittedly knew very little about. I
would be very interested in seeing the continuation of that theoretical
discussion, of course confined to examples that you are actually familiar with!

> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that a single reading of the rules
> would help, but as I know no one here who owns them and I would be hard put
> to pay about $50 for a ruleset I currently cannot use once I buy it, I am
> stuck with information provided by folks like you. I am anxiously awaiting
> a PK version for post-WWII, but until then or until I can scrape up some
> ancients armies I would have no way to play. Please note, the intent was
> basic problems with event-based games in theory, not PK specifically. I did
> include the fact that some of the problems I mentioned are in fact common to
> both MCM and event game systems, but that apparently did not help to prevent
> the appearance of attacking PK.

SK: I appreciate your difficulties in finance (believe me, I do!), and the
cost of PK has been an issue with some other people in the past. I also can
understand that you would want to know more about a system before purchasing it
- that's just being a good consumer. My only question is: Given all that, why
didn't you in fact learn more about PK, especially *before* using it as your
main illustration of the "problems" found in event-based systems? Or, why not
use other examples, ones that you are actually familiar with? Or, if the
discussion also concerns "problems" "common to both MCM and event game
systems," why not use some examples you are familiar with from *both* types of
systems? Just a suggestion, of course. ;-)

Once last time, I'm sorry if my over-sensitivity caused me to misread the
intention behind your posts. I hope that the discussion you were looking for
actually gets going soon. I also hope that you do some day manage to convince
yourself (and your S.O.!) that PK is indeed a good investment, and that you
have a chance to try it out. As I said before, you might be pleasantly
surprised!

Scott K.

[Brian Hodson]

Paul Minson wrote in message <7v2uam$2...@news.or.intel.com>...
>snip<

>How can you manage the interactions of two parallel chains of events that
>are unrelated up until the time they interact?

This, of course, is the million dollar question, and not only for
event-based systems, but for MCM games and the "real world" as well. The
example you offer, of a unit completing approximately one hour of activity,
then crossing the board to interact with units which have completed only
fifteen minutes activity, appears at first glance to be either a paradoxical
situation or a bizarre interference in the space-time continuum. If I may,
there is a second way to interpret the event sequencing, one which reveals a
"counter-factual" feature of MCM games as well.

We all like to game, and most of us have our troops off and running from the
moment they hit the table and the first turn begins. In a MCM-system, it is
possible, and common, for the entire line to move off at once -- barring
some kind of command/impetus limitation, we have the center, left and right
wings, and reserves up and running. We know from observation and intuition
that this is in reality only rarely achieved -- not every unit is formed up,
saddled up, loaded up, and juiced up at precisely 8:51 am to roll out in
cadence. An event-based system, by focusing on a single causality chain,
temporarily suspends activity elsewhere. So far, not so problematic.

The problem arises when game-play focuses on one sector of the battlefield
to the exclusion of all others. Again, we know intuitively that this is
unrealistic. Unlike a baseball game, the other players don't just sit
around and watch two team-mates slug it out, waiting to see what the result
is. Action *is* occurring outside of the main event.

Two solutions suggest themselves. First, encourage players to spread their
activity across the board, either through some game mechanism that forces
this, or through the development of game-play conventions. Second, recover
the randomizing effect of simultaneous, though causally separate, events
through specific reference to different units or sectors of the battlefield.
In other words, break up the players' control of events further by forcing
some events to occur, not when the player calls for them, but when the game
calls for them. Of course the MCM system encourages this (on the count of
three, everybody move!), but through the equally distorting mechanism of
simultaneous action. One mechanism I've seen suggested (which I offer as a
starting point for further discussion, rather than a "solution") is drawing
unit-specific cards (when you draw its card, you carry out actions for the
designated unit).

I hope that others more experienced with game design and practice will
comment here, as I feel that the problem of event sequencing across
disperate causality chains is the true achilles heel of both event-based and
MCM systems, and solutions found here could be fruitfully applied to both
types of game.

Brian Hodson

[Steven M Goode]

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.miniatures.historical: 27-Oct-99 Re:
Basic Problems With Eve.. by "Brian Hodson"@sprynet.c

> The problem arises when game-play focuses on one sector of the battlefield
> to the exclusion of all others. Again, we know intuitively that this is
> unrealistic. Unlike a baseball game, the other players don't just sit
> around and watch two team-mates slug it out, waiting to see what the result
> is. Action *is* occurring outside of the main event.
>
> Two solutions suggest themselves. First, encourage players to spread their
> activity across the board, either through some game mechanism that forces
> this, or through the development of game-play conventions. Second, recover
> the randomizing effect of simultaneous, though causally separate, events
> through specific reference to different units or sectors of the battlefield.
> In other words, break up the players' control of events further by forcing
> some events to occur, not when the player calls for them, but when the game
> calls for them. Of course the MCM system encourages this (on the count of
> three, everybody move!), but through the equally distorting mechanism of
> simultaneous action. One mechanism I've seen suggested (which I offer as a
> starting point for further discussion, rather than a "solution") is drawing
> unit-specific cards (when you draw its card, you carry out actions for the
> designated unit).
>

Excellent post.

The "unit card" idea is one I've been planning to use with the rules I'm
writing. By shuffling together the cards for all players involved, you
can avoid the MCM setup where the players know when their next
activation will be. There are a number of ways you can modify this
setup to reflect different C3 capabilities for different armies. Some
armies might have two cards per unit, although the unit could be
activated only once. That would allow them a better chance of being
able to activate two or three units in a row, and thus coordinate a
motion. You might also use wild cards (to activate any unit belonging
to a specific player), although I'm not sure what that could be used to
model.

A problem I've encountered with the unit-card-activation scheme is this:
Player A activates unit A1, races it over to the enemy, and engages in
melee. The melee is then resolved. The next time player A activates a
unit, he or she knows how A1's melee worked out, and can adjust his or
her plans accordingly. This may be realistic in some cases, but isn't
in others. The question is, how do you keep players from moving all
their troops together AND from being able to know the effects of each
action simultaneously? The way I propose to handle it is as follows.

Imagine we have the Red army and the Black army. Each has three units.
Take a normal deck of cards and pull out all the aces, twos, and threes.
Shuffle them together. Every phase, draw a card. If the first card is
an ace of clubs, then Black's unit #1 moves *but does not resolve melee
or firing*. Unit #1 only resolves melee and firing when an ace of
spades (the other black '1' card) is drawn.

This system has its own problems (what if you move up to an enemy, but
can't fire before the enemy moves away on its activation? or maybe
that's not a problem) but is, I think, worth thinking about.

[Tim]

Great post, Brian. But is this a problem? Or is the problem with
viewing things from the persctive most all of us come from, the time
based sequenced turn? See after the quote from your post:

Brian Hodson wrote:

> The problem arises when game-play focuses on one sector of the battlefield
> to the exclusion of all others. Again, we know intuitively that this is
> unrealistic. Unlike a baseball game, the other players don't just sit
> around and watch two team-mates slug it out, waiting to see what the result
> is. Action *is* occurring outside of the main event.

Let me repost part of a Crossfire related post. But first, I'll
apologise to all for going on and on about CF like a scratched record;
but CF is truly an event based game, even more so than the other well
known (on this newsgroup) event based game, Piquet (I don't know
anything about some of the "VLB" games that have been discussed).

Anyway, with respect to Brian's problem of narrow focus (from a
Crossfire perspective, but I think could be lifted to represent "event
based games" in general):

************
So the focus is
on events and situations occuring. From a conceptualization point of
view, it is therefore important to not try and explain what is happening
on the table strictly by time packets. For example, if everything
"freezes" while you sort out a situation on a left flank, you shouldn't
think of it as everything being suspended in time as you resolve the
situation. When you turn your attention to the centre or right flank
situations, these now "catch up" time wise to what has been happening on
the left.

Remember from your reading of accounts of battle and possibly any
peacetime military experience that nothing happens as evenly across the
battlefield as you usually get in traditional sequence games.

If you look at Crossfire this way, you could think of it as a movie
which documents what is happening to several platoons in a battle. It's
too much to show several situations on the screen at once. So we follow
1st platoon through their escapades for a while - they become boring, so
the camera switches to the tank platoon which becomes involved in a
terrific firefight, which takes up a large amount of the movie's time.
When the fight is over, we switch back to 1st platoon. We need to catch
up with what they've been doing. As they hear the cacophonous exchange
of their fellow armoured soldiers in the distance, they decide to move
to the location of the noise to see if they can help or at least find
out the outcome. However, they stumble upon a machine gun nest and our
camera becomes involved in the short sharp exchange here as one of their
squads is decimated but the rest storm the MG position, Saving Private
Ryan style. We leave them to their poor injured medic and then we jump
over to 3rd platoon. A brief look at the bored but tense faces who are,
so far, grateful for the eventless jaunt before switching back to the
tanks or 1st platoon and seeing what's happening there...
***************

In terms of two separate causality chains coming together, it's up to
the player(s) to decide if that happens. I've found with Crossfire that
after a lot of things happen, you can sit back and it is actually fun to
explain and speculate the actual of orders of things that occured;
"well, this SU-85 came around the back of the building to get at the
elefant and the squad with the panzerfausts caught a glimpse of it as it
moved between two buildings and rushed over to this wood to stop it"

"no, that's not what happened. The SU blew up the Stug and then backed
down the hill, disapearing. The squad leader figured it was coming and
moved into a flank position to protect the rear of the elefant - sure
enough, the SU came barrelling around the corner into a barrage of
panzerfausts..."

> Two solutions suggest themselves. First, encourage players to spread their
> activity across the board, either through some game mechanism that forces
> this, or through the development of game-play conventions.

The latter usually occurs in CF.

> One mechanism I've seen suggested (which I offer as a
> starting point for further discussion, rather than a "solution") is drawing
> unit-specific cards (when you draw its card, you carry out actions for the
> designated unit).

This is what happens in the ACW 1:1 game, Brother against Brother. This
is a great game, but essentially what you are doing is randomizing the
steps to a turn sequence. Piquet does this, but goes further in
randomizing the total number of things that can actually occur.

I think the card idea is an excellent one for making time based games
less predictable.
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^*~,_,~*^
,~*^#^*~, ^*~,_,~*^ "Stay away from Earth, freak!"
,~*^#^*~, Anonymous bad guy, Babylon 5

[Brian Hodson]

Tim wrote in message <38173C84...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>...

>But is this a problem? Or is the problem with
>viewing things from the persctive most all of us come from, the time
>based sequenced turn

In essence, you and I are closer than you might have realized -- you are
emphasizing the importance of perceptional relativity, I am resurrecting the
ghost of coincidental simultaneity. While it is true that for the most
part, local events on the battlefield resolve themselves within the confines
of their own little world, on occasion these little worlds overlap. Just as
much as we ought to break the confines of progamatic simultaneity, as
dictated in a MCM system, to enable event-oriented resolution, we cannot so
free ourselves of the time-space framework that interaction between
heretofore distinct and separate causality chains presents paradoxical
problems.

You are correct, one easy solution is to talk out the apparent paradoxes --
"Oh, I see, though we resolved the firefight in the brewery first, the
tank-duel on the waterfront had to occur before that Pz IV could cross the
bridge." But, on the one hand, some paradoxes become too problematic to
easily explain away, and on the other, *some* discrete causality chains do
eventually intersect in time. This becomes especially important where large
distances and longer periods of time are concerned -- do the Hussars pass
through the forest and get to the defile first before the routing Chausseurs
a Pied and so cut them off from retreat, or do the Chausseurs manage to run
away first?

In my own, constantly evolving rules set for solo play, I am currently
considering something like the CF system, with a "success" die roll added
for movement (to move you have to pass a die roll related to the difficulty
of the terrain -- this breaks up the unlimited "safe" movement of units
outside of LOS and encourages use of "easy" routes). To this, I am adding
mandatory "reaction" die rolls -- when threatened by the enemy, a unit must
roll a die to determine its response. As a result, the game play (in
theory) proceeds something like a rapid-fire ping-pong match with multiple
balls and paddles across several tables: Unit A1 moves forward into Unit
B1's LOS, forcing Unit B1 to roll a reaction, causing Unit B1 to break cover
and fire, exposing it to Unit A2, which must now roll its own reaction, etc.
The challenge, as you might anticipate, is recovering sufficient control of
the chain-reacting event sequences to enable the phasing player to return to
A1 and initiate a further action. To address this, I'm considering the
option of "combining" rolls -- for each mandatory reaction, a player may
"piggy-back" a voluntary action roll. This, however, sets up the
possibility of setting off *disparate* and *simultaneous* causality chains
(which, of course, is what I'm after!). So now, alongside the A1-B1-A2
sequence, we've added the possibility of a simultaneous A3-B2-A4 sequence --
but which reaction do we resolve first? While I can congratulate myself
that the confusion and tempo are possibly more accurate (or reflect a
different element of reality) than the stately MCM (on the count of three,
everybody....MOVE!) or the nail-biting anticipation of Card-Drawn event (do
I draw a fire card before he draws a move card?) systems, it seems that I've
created an unplayable monster.

Ideas, anyone?

Brian Hodson

[Paul Minson]

Now this is the type of discussion I was hoping to get going! Great posts
guys.

Tim wrote in message <38173C84...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>...

[snip]

>In terms of two separate causality chains coming together, it's up to
>the player(s) to decide if that happens. I've found with Crossfire that
>after a lot of things happen, you can sit back and it is actually fun to
>explain and speculate the actual of orders of things that occured;
>"well, this SU-85 came around the back of the building to get at the
>elefant and the squad with the panzerfausts caught a glimpse of it as it
>moved between two buildings and rushed over to this wood to stop it"
>
>"no, that's not what happened. The SU blew up the Stug and then backed
>down the hill, disapearing. The squad leader figured it was coming and
>moved into a flank position to protect the rear of the elefant - sure
>enough, the SU came barrelling around the corner into a barrage of
>panzerfausts..."

This does a great job of highlighting a basic issue I wanted to discuss.
Without some reference to time, when two chains have the potential to merge
or interact, the results are indeterminate. The system itself does not
contain the information necessary to say what actually happened. What I
would be especially interested in hearing about are ideas for compromise, or
mechanisms for keeping the event-based flow without encountering
indeterminacy in the output. I think many gamers play in part for the
dramatic story of the battle that emerges from the game (it's always fun to
me to read the after action reports people write). But where the system
becomes indeterminate, as you describe, multiple story lines become equally
possible and valid, and I hypothesize that this leaves some folks
uncomfortable. Keep the ideas coming, this is really getting interesting.

--Paul

[Paul Minson]

Scott L. Karakas wrote in message <3815A0C7...@uncg.edu>...

>Once again, thanks for conducting this discussion in such a calm and
rational
>tone, even when I do become a bit "cranky." :-)

I guess I approach it from the "lead from the front" theory--I can't expect
others to do so unless I can first do so myself. I think a lot of the power
of this forum gets drained when discussions devolve into name calling
matches and 'my-insult-is-better-than-your-insult' contests. I very much
enjoy the intellectual interplay that occurs here, and am frequently awed at
the collective knowledge present in the newsgroup.

[snip]

>When I saw your post, my initial reaction was, "Oh, great! There's yet
another
>one of those wonderful folk who are absolutely certain that PK is
worthless,
>even though they've never even laid eyes on the rules!" I can clearly see
now
>that this was not your intention, and I once again apologize for misreading
>you, but perhaps you can also see how I might have jumped to the conclusion
>that it was. I would certainly not have assumed this if either the initial
>post had been as clear as its subject heading in limiting itself to a
>theoretical discussion of event-based systems in general, or had asked your
>excellent questions about how PK worked *before* beginning a treatise on
the
>"basic flaws" in the rules. Two different subjects for two different
posts,
>perhaps?

No problem. As was observed, this is a less than perfect medium, and I lay
no claim to being the Great Communicator. I learn as I go. Patience and
tolerance should probably be watchwords for usenet. Probably would have
been better as separate posts. Unfortunate that my understanding of PK
remains imperfect in spite of all I've read here and on the web about it. I
do intend to rectify this, but until PK has a ruleset compatible with
miniatures I have, I am reduced henceforth to spectator.

>SK: I still think that you are conflating two or more different
discussions
>here. Jim has indeed discussed the possibility of having no time
measurement
>attached to a wargaming "turn," but as he explained in his follow-up post,
this
>was in the context of a *new* set of rules he was contemplating creating.
>OTOH, Bob has talked about the subjectivity of experienced time, as well as
the
>artificial nature and limitations of the standard x-minute "turn"
(especially
>when used as an "absolute" marker of events), but has never actually
proposed
>doing away with it. A further debate on these issues would indeed be
>interesting. Rereading your initial post, I can clearly see that it indeed
>began down that path, but then it somehow veered into a discussion of the
>"flaws" in the mechanics of a system you admittedly knew very little about.
I
>would be very interested in seeing the continuation of that theoretical
>discussion, of course confined to examples that you are actually familiar
with!

Agreed. I actually am hoping that others will pipe up, as is starting to
occur. My goal is to learn more and collect opinions of others, not to
evangelize any particular viewpoint or ruleset. Perhaps that's a bit
idealistic for this forum in its current state, but one has to have hope....

[snip]

>SK: I appreciate your difficulties in finance (believe me, I do!), and the
>cost of PK has been an issue with some other people in the past. I also
can
>understand that you would want to know more about a system before
purchasing it
>- that's just being a good consumer. My only question is: Given all that,
why
>didn't you in fact learn more about PK, especially *before* using it as
your
>main illustration of the "problems" found in event-based systems? Or, why
not
>use other examples, ones that you are actually familiar with? Or, if the
>discussion also concerns "problems" "common to both MCM and event game
>systems," why not use some examples you are familiar with from *both* types
of
>systems? Just a suggestion, of course. ;-)

Well, having read everything I could find (except for wading through some of
the old flame wars on deja news where the signal to noise ratio approaches
zero) I thought I had a better understanding of PK's mechanics and
philosophy than I apparently do. Hopefully nobody was terminally offended.

>Once last time, I'm sorry if my over-sensitivity caused me to misread the
>intention behind your posts. I hope that the discussion you were looking
for
>actually gets going soon. I also hope that you do some day manage to
convince
>yourself (and your S.O.!) that PK is indeed a good investment, and that you
>have a chance to try it out. As I said before, you might be pleasantly
>surprised!

It looks like the discussion's beginning. I do hope to try PK out. I
really hope that a post-WWII version of PK will surface. With the rapid
flow of events in post-1970 combat, I think there are some real challenges
to meet in any event-based design, and I would be interested in seeing the
approaches people take to handle the high level of communications and
coordination that are now possible as compared to the earlier eras.

Happy gaming,
Paul

[Matt DLM]

Honestly ,guys, I am still waiting for a definition of an event based game.

I can understand why Crossfire is defined as such, but I cannot ascertain
another title that necessarily would be.

I could see that the Variable Length Bound, for instance, could be described as
event based or time based. I would say that my own design LoG is event based,
although it has time-distance relationships in it.

I've enjoyed the conversation gentlemen - look forward to some answers.
Matt DeLaMater

[Steve Burt]

Tim wrote:
>> One mechanism I've seen suggested (which I offer as a
>> starting point for further discussion, rather than a "solution") is drawing
>> unit-specific cards (when you draw its card, you carry out actions for the
>> designated unit).
>
>This is what happens in the ACW 1:1 game, Brother against Brother. This
>is a great game, but essentially what you are doing is randomizing the
>steps to a turn sequence. Piquet does this, but goes further in
>randomizing the total number of things that can actually occur.
>
>I think the card idea is an excellent one for making time based games
>less predictable.

I've done this successfully with Shako.
When you are unsure of the order things will happen, it removes a lot of 'gamey' calculations by players, and makes them plan ahead a bit more.

--
Steve Burt

The moral is to the physical as three is to one
Napoleon

[Brian Hodson]

Paul Minson wrote in message <7v83mn$6...@news.or.intel.com>...
>snip<

>But where the system
>becomes indeterminate, as you describe, multiple story lines become equally
>possible and valid, and I hypothesize that this leaves some folks
>uncomfortable.

Writing as a historian, what you describe is actually closer to reality than
a single, comprehensive narrative form. No single witness is ever in a
position to observe all of the contingent events and produce an
unproblematic, unitary account. Instead, we are faced with competing and
often conflicting evidence, and must attempt to weigh each piece against the
others, to develop a carefully argued interpretation of what happened. War,
with its high stakes and confusion is especially difficult to re-cover in a
fully articulated narrative -- there are too many contingent events
interacting, the memory of participants is clouded and narrowed by emotional
and perceptual limitations, and, often, a great number of potential
witnesses are unable to provide testimony (read, dead).

I recently saw a documentary on revisionist study of Custer's Last Stand.
Tests were conducted to determine whether it would have been possible to
hear gunfire at the bottom of Medicine Tail Coulee from Reno's defensive
position on the bluffs. Under controlled conditions, it was determined
that, in fact, Reno should have been able to hear the sounds of Custer's
first skirmish near the Little Bighorn, in spite of his own later denial of
having any knowledge that Custer was engaged. Other evidence was brought
forward to suggest that a junior officer in Reno's command may have led his
own company, on his own initiative and against Reno's wishes, north along
the bluffs to a point at which he *might* have been able to witness Custer's
last stand on the hilltop.

So how now do we write our history of Custer's Last Stand? Do we assert
that Reno had knowledge that he later denied, raising the possibility that
Reno is culpable for Custer's death (here I must ask the Custer Fan Club to
refrain from cheering), do we ignore the newly emerging evidence (in fact
produced more than one hundred years after the event -- we now have more
extensive, though still limited knowledge of the location and extent of the
Indian village, and the skirmishes, based on archeological excavations) and
assert that Reno's original account is fully factual and complete, or do we
attempt to argue and weigh the various *possible* interpretations of events,
bearing in mind our ultimate inability to speak with complete certainty.

Earlier, I have raised an argument against narrative resolution of
paradoxical interactions between disparate causality chains. Here, I will
step forward to defend it as providing a more "realistic" experience of
battlefield observation -- since we can't know precisely, we must
"interpret" events in a manner that we can logically support on the basis of
available evidence. So, Tim, I'm not throwing out the "after action
briefing" as a means of resolving the paradoxes presented in the game.

My remaining concern deals with re-introducing sufficient simultaneity in
the resolution of disparate causality chains to enable them to occasionally
intersect to produce unpredictable results. For example, we determine that
the Russian rocket barrage overshot its intended target and came crashing
down in the field behind the factory. How then do we determine whether the
infantry squad moving through the field from the forest to the bridge
happened to be in the wrong place (field) at the wrong time (arrival and
detonation of rockets)?

In a MCM system, this is handled by applying the fire effects to any units
currently located in the target area, thereby impacting the moving infantry
squad *only* if it ended its previous bound in the field (some sophisticated
rules sets may "call back" the infantry to apply the artillery effect, but
this raises questions about subsequent events, i.e., if the infantry squad
was obliterated by the artillery fire, how did they then manage to reach the
bridge and block the enemy tank from crossing?). In this system, artillery
fire always takes the same amount of time to arrive (one full turn) and
movement always proceeds in a stepped, linear fashion, from bound to bound.

In an EB (event based) system, we can only determine sequencing *relative*
to other events, so we discover that the artillery landed either *before*
the infantry entered the field or *after*; *during* only occurs if the
infantry is caught in the field at the end of a movement bound. So far, so
much like MCM, except that determining how long they are caught in the open
depends on the player's wishes. Does he flip through the deck, expending
impetus while looking for another move card (PK) or does he simply move the
squad through unobserved (CF)? [Here I must apologize if I have
misunderstood the mechanics of either PK or CF, and I trust that others who
are better informed will correct me.] In either case, whether or not the
squad is left in the field, exposed to the incoming barrage, depends on the
player's *will* -- if he wants the infantry to move, he will do what is
necessary to move them, if his attentions are directed elsewhere, the
infantry will lounge about the field, waiting for the spotlight to return so
that they can advance.

After battle narratives, of course, can explain either conundrum (MCM: the
squad either moved quickly through the field or was too slow and got
"caught"; EB: the squad had a poor understanding of the urgency of moving
out of its exposed position and was caught in the open), nor are these
explanations necessarily flawed (I'll argue that they're good and
appropriate). What is missing, however, is the possibility for the
intrusion of the unexpected coincidence -- the infantry moved through the
field at a good speed, AND got caught by the artillery barrage, through no
fault of its own, but simply because of the intersection of two disparate
causality chains (spot enemy force in factory, call for barrage, fire
barrage, resolve effects; decide to advance across the field to the bridge,
advance, get caught in field when barrage lands).

I'm not arguing that the unexpected intersection should occur with
tremendous frequency, only that it should remain a possibility. Many will
perhaps respond by saying that, "In MyFavoriteRuleSystem, unexpected events
occur all the time. Just last night I ordered my Old Guard to assault his
line infantry, but they got caught by the horse artillery that unlimbered
faster than I thought they could." Yes, this is unexpected (by one player)
but is the direct result of the other player's ordered actions. What I want
to recover are the truly unexpected events -- the horse artillery unlimbers
not because they expect the Old Guard to advance and *know* that they must
stop them with a well-timed barrage, but because they were ordered a
half-hour earlier to trot up to the line and set up shop -- had they arrived
ten minutes sooner, the enemy commander would surely not have ordered his
Old Guard into their field of fire, had they arrived ten minutes later, the
line would have already collapsed under the Old Guard assault.

Brian Hodson

[ToySldr]

Paul wrote:

<<This does a great job of highlighting a basic issue I wanted to discuss.
Without some reference to time, when two chains have the potential to merge or
interact, the results are indeterminate. The system itself does not contain
the information necessary to say what actually happened. What I would be
especially interested in hearing about are ideas for compromise, or mechanisms
for keeping the event-based flow without encountering indeterminacy in the
output. I think many gamers play in part for the dramatic story of the battle
that emerges from the game (it's always fun to me to read the after action

reports people write). But where the system becomes indeterminate, as you

describe, multiple story lines become equally possible and valid, and I

hypothesize that this leaves some folks uncomfortable. Keep the ideas coming,

this is really getting interesting.>>

JG: Let me put forward that the degree to which the indeterminacy is a problem
is a function of the perspective wanted by the player. I wrote an article in
MWAN some time back about the history book view of wargaming design. This
perspective requires a greater resolution of events because it attempts to both
tell what happened as well as why (and perhaps when) it happened. I would class
Empire as such as system. This is a perfectly valid perspective, but it
requires a great deal of effort on both the designers and players' parts. The
more event based concepts we have been discussing tend I feel to take a more
"real world experience" perspective in that the game must only provide what has
happened. Why it has happened and even when it has happened (in the sense of
defining when the actual occurrence was as opposed to when the commander became
aware of the occurrence) are not necessarily a requirement of the process. If
you want the game to be a history the indeterminacy will be a problem, if you
want the game to be an experience, the indeterminacy will be a feature.

Jim

[Tim]

HI Brian, et al

I'll talk about what I know best with respect to your rocket barrage
example - Crossfire. I've only read PK Hallowed Ground (we are still in
the planning stages of playing this).

First of all, CF as you probably know does not ignore interaction of
various events. It may seem that way to some, but if it does, look at
my "movie camera" description in my previous post.

Brian Hodson wrote:

> intersect to produce unpredictable results. For example, we determine that
> the Russian rocket barrage overshot its intended target and came crashing
> down in the field behind the factory. How then do we determine whether the
> infantry squad moving through the field from the forest to the bridge
> happened to be in the wrong place (field) at the wrong time (arrival and
> detonation of rockets)?

Although the game mechanics of CF do strongly resemble my analogy of the
movie camera going from situation to situation, these situations do not
occur in complete isolation. When an event has the focus of players,
repercussions from that event will affect other events. Thus, things
are occuring somewhat sequentially, in a relative fashion. The movie
analogy does say that switching from one situation to the other could
involve going back in time. But if an event has an influence on
another, then the situations are related by time passage, ie, it is the
"present" for all situations affected.

Here's a *possible* CF sequence involving your example, Brian. For
those not familiar with CF, a side has the initiative. When you have
the initiative, you can move, fire rally your troops and perform other
tasks and keep on doing it until you fail at something. While you move,
the other side can "reactive fire" in an attempt to kill or suppress
your moving troops which causes you to fail your action. Initiative
then switches and roles reverse. Note, BTW, CF rules for indirect fire,
in CF's very simple style of do not accomadate overshoots. But we'll
imagine they do for this purpose.

Germans have the initiative. The squad in question traverses the
field. The Soviets have a squad which can see into the field. They
reactive fire and stop the German squad in the middle of the field. The
German fails his move attempt (crossing the field) and the Sovets take
initiative.

Soviets take the initiative. They are not particularly concerned about
the situation above in the field and look at another area on the table
of more concern to them. They think there is an open German flank.
They move a T-34 in that direction. The Germans have a Pak 38 hidden in
a wood; as the T-34 moves into view, the German player declares he will
reactive fire at the tank. He reactive fires and misses - Soviets still
have initiative. The T-34 grinds to a halt and fires at the Pak 38; it
misses, so this means the Soviet has failed; the Germans get the
initiative (CF players - yes, I am assuming the use of house rules
which allow AFVs more freedom).

In their initiative, the Germans, now alarmed at the threat to their
flank, forget about their squad in the field. The Pak 38 thunders
again, glancing off the T-34's glacis - initiative switches to the
Soviets.

Soviet initiative again. They are very intent on this area - they fire
HE and miss again, Germans get initiative

The slogging match and corresponding initiatives go back and forth (in
this case the players choose to do so) wildly because of poor Soviet
marksmanship and the lack of German arowhead tungsten core ammo (sorry
getting technical here 8) ).

This situation goes on to the exclusion of everything else.

On his next initiative (after any number of intiative switches,
depending on how long the poor gunnery goes on), the Soviet gets smart
and then, with a nearby observer (yeah I know the Soviets didn't do much
of artillery on call) calls in a Katyusha barrage on the pesky 50mm
gunners who are messing up his attempts to get to the German flanks.
All this while, our lonely squad in the field has received no attention
from his player.

The rockets come in and we'll say one of two things, A or B, could
happen:

A - the rockets slam home, clearing the way for the T-34 - more action
takes place in this area.

B - the rockets overshoot, plummeting into the field in which the
hapless German squad now stands

The "after action analysis" could be:

A - The Soviets tried to push through a German flank which was protected
by a pak 38. After a terrific but inconclusive slogging match between
the two, the Soviets called in a barrage and wiped out the AT gun and
pushed on. *Some time around, before or after this was happening*, a
lone German squad further away was experiencing difficulty crossing a
field, being hampered by a Soviet squad.

B - The Soviets tried to push through a German flank which was protected
by a pak 38. After a terrific but inconclusive slogging match between
the two, the Soviets called in a barrage which overshot and *wiped out a
German squad which was crossing a field at the time*

The two possible outcomes show how two separate events can be related in
Crossfire, an event based game. In A, the two events do not affect each
other and exactly *when* during the course of the battle they occured
does not entirely matter. This is rather like the sort of battle
histories which consist of individual stories of veterans' experineces
which are apart from each other in distance and could be anywhere with
respect to each other in time.

In outcome B, the consequences of the action at the flank directly
affect action elsewhere, so the two situations can be said to occur at
the same time. Of course, the german could have, instead of
concentarating on the slogging match have done more with the squad in
the field. Maybe his actions would have removed the squad from the area
when the overshooting rockets landed, who knows?

So (gasp - sorry for the length) the above fits exactly how you describe
what can happen in an event based system, Brian.

If you do make any headway with an EB game design system, BTW, and want
testers, I'd be happy to try things out with my fellow Crossfireites. 8)

The above sample resolution is one of my favourite things about CF, BTW.
IN a sequence based game, the exchange between the T-34 and pak38 would
have gone on interminiably. After each failed exchange of shots, all
other shooting and moving would have to take place, stretching the
slogging match over many turns. In CF, the intense situation gets
resolved in a matter of minutes, real time (assuming the players focus
all their attention on it, which they don't have to do); you fire, I
fire, you fire, bang, bang, bang, bang...then, ultimately, KABOOM! It
makes for wonderfully exciting games where encounters are as pulse
quickening as an encounter in multiplayer deathmatch Doom or Quake! 8)

[Paul Minson]

ToySldr wrote in message <19991028111130.23700.00003291@ng-

Jim, thanks, wish I could have seen the article. Your post leaves me
wondering if my original question was misdirected. Perhaps instead of
wondering what can be done to get the best of both worlds, the question I
should ask is (and maybe it has already been answered somewhere by game
design theoreticians), "Is it even possible to reconcile MCM and event-based
benefits into a game system, or are they, by their very definitions,
mutually exclusive?" Could it be that the best one could hope for is
something similar to what a future computer wargame might do, where it would
have an MCM system running under the hood, invisible to the players, but
would present to the players only the information the commander they
represent has available, if and when the commander would become aware of
such information?

This brings up another interesting thought on the 'commander's perspective'
approach to wargame design. Often, a commander lacked correct information
on the details of a battle outcome until well after the fact. He might have
a correct (or even incorrect) impression of whether the objectives were
achieved, but might not know the true status and positions of all his forces
until some time after the fighting died down. For instance, during WWII, a
company under attack might drop out of communication with HQ, leaving the HQ
believing the unit was destroyed and causing it to respond as such, when in
fact after the battle it was discovered the unit was in place and carrying
out its mission, but the radio was damaged and a man couldn't be spared from
the defensive effort to carry a message back to HQ. This opens up some
questions in handling campaign games, where events in one battle affect
conditions at the beginning of the next. If the conditions on the table at
the end of the battle represent the commander's current information, some
amount of that information is likely incorrect. It feels like one mechanism
that would be good to add for campaign systems would be a mechanism to
'correct' wrong or missing information at the end of a battle fought on the
tabletop. This might take the form of rolling for each destroyed unit to
see if it was really destroyed or just routed, and possibly rolling for a
closely contested objective to see if it really did end up in enemy hands or
if the reports were incorrect. Boy, I can see some gamers having a fit over
that one: "What! You mean we didn't win the battle after all!? But our
troops held the hill!" "No, your commander received a report that SAID your
troops held the hill, but in fact, they were on the wrong hill, or they were
thrown off the hill at the end of the battle, or they mistakenly withdrew
from the hill when the fighting stopped, or whatever."). This kind of
reinforces the question about whether MCM and event-based mechanisms can be
combined, because the events experienced by a given commander during the eng
agement aren't guaranteed to actually be consistent with reality when things
get sorted out after the fighting is over.

--Paul

[Brian Hodson]

ToySldr wrote in message <19991028111130...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>snip<
>if you want the game to be a history the indeterminacy will be a problem,

if you
>want the game to be an experience, the indeterminacy will be a feature.

As I've said elsewhere, indeterminacy is the rule in historical study,
determinate statements the odd exception. So, no, a game that offers a
debateable resolution to questions of "what, how and when" events occurred
on the battlefield is in fact a better "model" of historical discourse than
one that offers a precise record.

Brian Hodson

[Brian Hodson]

Thank you for the very clear response, and for humoring me in using my
random situation as an example for purposes of rules clarification.

I agree, CF, when interpreted as you have explained, offers a nice means of
capturing the indeterminate nature of combat flow. What I am still
uncertain of is how you would model the intrusion of an unwanted event
(i.e., not called by either player). What you describe seems to limit
action to events selected by both players as "desireable" -- I want to
destroy that T-34, so I will order my PAK38 to fire. While this is not an
inaccurate account of the "small world" view of micro-combats, what about
the "unwanted" or "unexpected" events that intrude? Assuming both players
are committed to the tank vs. anti-tank duel, there will be only one of two
possible conclusions: either the tank or the AT gun destroys his opponent.
There is not the possibility of any other outcome.

Brian Hodson

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <7vagon$h55$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Brian says...

BJ: Brian-I could not agree more, and it is one of the core design rationales
for PK to reflect that fact. Dead on! Well said!

BJ
>
>

[Scott L. Karakas]

Matt,

I've tried to stay out of these theoretical discussions for the most part, but I
feel compelled to reply. Quite frankly, I have some problems with the notion that
*any* miniatures rules are in fact "time based," unless they truly take place in
"real time," and some sort of timing system is used to insure that the actions of
the participant remain in "real time." I think that there is a lot of merit to
Jim Getz' notion, expressed earlier, that *all* miniatures rules systems could
instead be described as "event based," because all rules in fact center on the
"actions" (movement, missile fire, melee, reactions to changes in morale, the
transmission of orders, etc.) ascribed to the little lead soldiers on the table,
and attempt to correlate them, in one way or another, to the actions and events we
read about in accounts of historical battles. Perhaps you now agree with this
definition?

Traditional MCM systems like Empire create carefully ordered sequences of
actions/events for each "turn" (or "bound" if you are a DBx fan) insuring that
each side always gets an equal opportunity to perform the same actions, and then
usually assigns to each turn as specific unit of time, whether it is 15 minutes,
30 minutes, an hour, or whatever. However, there is usually no correlation
between the time it takes to complete a turn, and the length of time that turn is
said to represent. For example, I've never seen the following in a miniatures
battle: "I'm sorry, it's too late for your troops to fire their missiles. 60
minutes have passed, so the turn is now over." In fact, MCM design does *not*
require that any particular unit of time be assigned to each turn (even the title
"move-countermove" describes actions, without any reference at all to time), and
some MCM rulesets, like Tactica, have flatly refused to assign *any* length of
time to one of their "turns."

Crossfire, the most commonly cited example of an "event-based" ruleset, has
likewise refused to attach a specific length of time to the activities represented
on the table. But instead of using a traditional turn sequence to regulate
movement distances and other activities, Crossfire ties them to specific terrain
features on the miniature battlefield. Sometimes units move great distances in a
single turn, sometimes less, depending entirely on the terrain. Perhaps it would
be more accurate to describe Crossfire as a "terrain-based" wargame?

The Piquet system lies somewhere between these two extremes, although its handling
of actions and events is in fact closer to the MCM system than to the one used in
Crossfire. As in many MCM games, each "turn" is still assigned a specific length
of represented time (30 minutes in 25mm tactical scale). The primary difference
is that the turn sequence has been randomized, so that gamers will not be as
certain about who will get to do what first. This is in fact similar in concept
to the notion of "rolling for impetus" found in some MCM games, but of course
taken quite a bit further. Other rules in PK reduce the degree of certainty about
how many total actions may be performed in any given turn. Nonetheless, PK is in
fact "time based" in exactly the same way as all MCM games I am aware of - that
is, a "turn" has been assigned a specific length of represented time, nothing
more.

In the world of sports, American baseball can be described as an "event-based
game," because the marking of *events* is crucial to the progression of the play,
whereas the measurement of time is not: a team's at-bat each inning is finished
when it has suffered three "outs," regardless of how much time it may take for
this to occur. In contrast, basketball can be accurately described as "time
based," since the game is over when 48 minutes (for the pros) have elapsed on the
court, pretty much regardless of what activities are taking place at the instant
time runs out. IMHO, rulesets for miniatures wargames most closely resemble the
structure of baseball. In fact, the only truly significant conceptual difference
that I can see is that no rules writer for baseball has yet declared that "each
inning represents 15 minutes of actual time."

To sum up, I agree with JG that, in truth, virtually *all* miniatures wargaming
rules can be most accurately described as "event-based," since the actions/events
on the tabletop are the fundamental building blocks around which the rules are
constructed, whether a certain length of represented time is assigned to each
"turn" or not. The only games that I would in fact describe as "time-based" would
be those in which the actual passage and measurement of *time* (probably requiring
a stopwatch) is truly the core they are built around. Does anyone out there know
of any?

Just my $0.02 worth!

Scott K.

[Scott L. Karakas]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can think of one additional type of
hypothetical miniatures wargame that I could accept as being "time-based," and which
does not require a timing device, or in fact any true relation to "real time." In
this hypothetical system, each turn could be said to represent, for example, 30
minutes, but instead of being broken down into segments based on events/actions
(moving, firing, melee, etc.), would in fact be divided into... (surprise) "minutes!"

If we listen in on such a "time-based" wargame, we would hear the referee say
something like: "All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are now beginning "Minute 12"
of our second 15-minute turn. Dick, in "Minute 11" your left flank unit was firing
at Jane's opposing unit. Do you want to continue fire? And Jane, in "Minute 11"
your opposing unit was marching forward toward Dick's unit. Do you them to continue
doing so, or will they stop and return fire?" I can see a *lot* of potential
difficulties in attempting to construct such a set of wargame rules, but at least
they could truly be thought of as being "time-based." Anyone know of any such
miniatures rulesets out there?

Without using either a "real time" timing device, or at the very least using units of
time as the primary basis for marking activities on the tabletop, I frankly don't see
how a set of miniatures rules can be accurately described as "time-based" at all.
As always, it's just my $0.02 worth, but I hope that these ideas provide some scope
for further discussion.

Scott K.

[Matt DLM]

Scott,

Thank you for an excellent reply. I agree with you - I too feel that 99% of
wargames are event based.

The design discussion than is more about fixed turn sequences and variable turn
sequences.

Also, non-MCM versus MCM.

Note that not all fixed turn sequences are MCM.

One small disagreement - I would not classify Empire as a traditional MCM game.
Actually, it has similarities to Crossfire, in that you have to fail at an
action to lose your tactical turn.
Matt DeLaMater

[Matt DLM]

Brian Hodson wrote:<<So, no, a game that offers a

debateable resolution to questions of "what, how and when" events occurred
on the battlefield is in fact a better "model" of historical discourse than
one that offers a precise record.>>

Even the most traditional MCM game ends in debate more often than a uncontested
resolution! And then the second guessing begins at the bar. So I am not sure
that Brain's statement gets us anywhere.

Matt DeLaMater

[Stephen Holmes]

As a huge crossfire fan, I'd like to put my opinion in here.

Does Crossfire make sense or not?
Certainally some of the opposition comes from people whose criticisms give the
impression that they just didn't get it.
Others probably bring too much baggage from their previous game systems, and
don't like the fact that crossfire doesn't do what they hoped it would.

My opinion is that Crossfire is hard work to get into for such a slim rulebook.
The lack of a turn sequence, followed by a section on each phase, means that
traditional learning methods don't work too well.
Also the presence of a couple of heavy mechanisms (Firegroup/Crossfire, but
especially crossfire engaging a group move) make hard going.

Having played a few games, and being one of the fortunate ones who seems to have
worked out how to construct terrain in advance, I really like the system.
I think my main point would be that Crossfire works well for games of a certain
size.
I find that one on one, companies and reduced battalions are about right.
Attempts to field two battalions on the table led to all sorts of weird stuff
happening, and a real loss of the speed and tension which make the game so good.
Weird tactics which would seem more at home on the gridiron field started to
emerge.
Provided that a continuous front could be maintained, it was possible to
shift companies and supports across the rear of the whole force.
This seemed a bit too easy (Maybe would be OK for a motorised reserve with
lateral roads) - and a strange throwback to Alexander and his Companions.

Anybody who has played fixed turn games will know that these don't scale too well
either.
The old story about commanding 2 levels down applies, though group games may work
for 3 levels.
Crossfire differs mainly in that the rot sets in extremely fast.

This may or may not be a problem for you.
Obviously if you want to do D-Day or Kursk, then Crossfire is not the system
anyway.
I feel it sits in the right slot for all us 30somethings who once played 1:1
scale with Airfix Figures.

Steve Holmes

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <19991028233425...@ng-fe1.aol.com>, mat...@aol.com
says...

BJ: That is a decidedly different thing. That speaks to a game that either by
design or scenario has no means of reaching a resolution. In fact, MCM games,
because of their often immediate and total balancing of opportunity and process,
often add to the attritional combat structures of many rule sets to magnify this
clouded resolution result. Too many arguments in the bar usually means a bad
rule design. (Some gamers enjoy clouded results-they don't really win-BUT they
didn't (HORRORS!) lose!)

The difference between a fixed sequence's complete lack of surprise, coupled
with rules that attempt to 'explain' every minor event , and a variable sequence
design, where niether side can totally control events nor predict what event
will be next, is akin to the difference between watching a replay of a baseball
game, and actually playing in the game.

If one writes rules to create an illusion of events occuring that must be judged
and acted upon rapidly-and only then become history-rather than a design that
attempts to make the rules reflect the events of history by rigidly controlling
the flow of events -eliminating surprise, confusion, flukes of fate, unknown
causes, and all the things that history later tries to make sense of-then you
have written a bad history book- not a good set of wargame rules.

Variable sequencing is far superior to fixed sequencing-and any of a number of
initiative approaches are better than MCM- at portraying events as they happen
with suspense and surprise.

I think, conceptually, that battle is over-it may take the rear ranks a bit of
time to know that.

BJ

[Phil Dutre]

"Scott L. Karakas" wrote:
>
> As a follow-up to my previous post, I can think of one additional type of
> hypothetical miniatures wargame that I could accept as being "time-based," and which
> does not require a timing device, or in fact any true relation to "real time." In
> this hypothetical system, each turn could be said to represent, for example, 30
> minutes, but instead of being broken down into segments based on events/actions
> (moving, firing, melee, etc.), would in fact be divided into... (surprise) "minutes!"

We had a similar discussion a few months ago, and I proposed something
that could look like something you're describing. I'll include my
original post and then some of the responses.

Phil

Subject: Re: Modelling time & space (was: Re: Peaceful Wargaming)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:53:36 -0400
From: Phil Dutre <ph...@graphics.cornell.edu>

Basically, the umpire would have a timetable (indexed in workable
time intervals). Let's say unit A & B clash in melee. The umpire would
determine how long it would take to resolve the melee, and write down
the end of this event on his timetable. Suppose we are currently
at time t=5, the melee is determined to last 6 time units, so he
writes 'end of melee between A and B' in the row for t=11. Also
suppose that also at t=5, units C and D go in melee, and their melee
lasts 4 units, ending at t=9. (time endings kept secret from the
players, of course)

The timetable looks as follows:

...
t=5 <current>
t=6
t=7
t=8
t=9: end melee C&D
t=10
t=11: end melee A&B
t=12
...

If nothing else happens, the umpire now announces that we jump from t=5
to t=9, and announces that the melee will now be resolved. (the melee
could have been resolved when it was initiated, but if something at
t=7 would have happened that influenced the melee, the umpire would have
to resolve it again). The umpire announces the results, adjusts the
table,
and gives the players any opportunity to issue new orders or make new
decisions as allowed by the system.

The tricky part would be movement, especially since moving troops can
influence each other. If unit A moves to its destination, starting at
t=4, arriving their at t=12, and unit B starts moving at t=5, arriving
at its destination at t=11, you just cannot jump to t=11, because
the paths of the moving units might cross, resulting in some sort
of encounter at let's say t=8. The easy and tedious way to resolve
this is to move fractions of the total move in each time interval,
but that would take too much time. Instead, the umpire should keep
an eye on any potential interferences between moving units, and
calculate the appropriate fration of distance moved when an interference
occurs.

Such a system would be compatible with a control mechanism. E.g. f you
would play horse & musket, you could use couriers, which do not
need to be represented by figures, but could be modeled as an
abstraction,
arriving at certain t-values with the C-in-C, and only then a C-in-C
could issue new orders. It would even be possible to jump from
courier to courier t-value, and resolve any finished events regarding
units of which the courier brings information. This way, a player
is only informed of the actual status of units when he actually receives
info. (I suppose I don't need to mention that you can simulate couriers
to farther away units by allowing for larger time periods for them
to arrive, or that you can simulate the interception of couriers by some
die rolling/card drawing/ whatever mechanism).

I don't think this sounds totally unplayable, although it would
require at least one umpire - and maybe two umpires would be better
(one for movement and one for all the rest).

Phil

====================================================================
>
> Phil Dutre <ph...@graphics.cornell.edu> writes: >

> > If nothing else happens, the umpire now announces that we jump from t=5
> > to t=9, and announces that the melee will now be resolved. (the melee
> > could have been resolved when it was initiated, but if something at
> > t=7 would have happened that influenced the melee, the umpire would have
> > to resolve it again). The umpire announces the results, adjusts the
> > table,
> > and gives the players any opportunity to issue new orders or make new
> > decisions as allowed by the system.
>
> The only problem with this is, that we're still using "time intervals"
> (turns). Although what you stated could be a way of working event into
> a turn based system, another solution would be to extend the time
> intervals so that each melee would be completed within a single "turn"
> (ie from 5 min intervals to 15 mins). But at least your being constructive
> about the problem (it's always easier to poke holes <EG>).

It might seem like turns, but it really isn't. I just simplified the
notation a little by giving whole numbers as time indicators, but
you could as well say "melee ends at t=23 minutes, 4 seconds". I just
think it's easier to work with whole numbers. Each numbe can as well
represent seconds, and a four hour battle would then range from t=1
to t=3600*4=14400.
In practice, I see some sort of 'hierarchical' time table, where
you have entries for each 10 minutes and then within that entry note
down
the exact time to whatever accuracy is necessary.
Of course, for fractionalized movement, it becomes a bit harder to
calculate ...

> The fact that units are moving on the table is probably the largest
> "sticking" point in tring to implement an event driven system

Maybe this can be solved with some die rolls.
Suppose the next event that's scheduled to finish states that unit
A should arrive at its destination point. The umpire then has to judge
if any other scheduled events (which would normally end in the future)
would intervene (typical example: enemy unit moving on an interception
course). He can resolve this by a die roll (with whatever modifiers
you want). If the result is 'no intervention', resolve the current
event, and go to the next. If the die roll indicates there is
intervention, move both the current unit and intervening unit, and
create a new event to be rsolved. You can rationalize this by saying
that the movement of a unit on the battlefield is not linear and
uniform in speed, that the troops maybe don't want to intervene etc...

--
=======================================================================
Philip Dutre Program of Computer Graphics Cornell University
ph...@graphics.cornell.edu http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~phil/
=======================================================================

[Tim]

I think your definitions are bang on, Scott. I think the better term
for what I, at least, have described as "time based" is "move-counter
move" (MCM - coined by Bob Jones, I think) or even better, IMHO,
"structured turn sequence". STS? What do you think? Your term "terrain
based" for Crossfire is a good one too, though I think "event based"
describes it fairly well, too.

I think maybe just one thing that is missing in your definition of
MCM/time based/STS games. That is that *all* miniatures get a chance to
move or counter move (assuming there are not things such as activation
rolls or similar things).

Scott L. Karakas wrote:

> Traditional MCM systems like Empire create carefully ordered sequences of

*TRIM a bunch of good things*

[Scott L. Karakas]

Tim wrote:

> I think your definitions are bang on, Scott. I think the better term
> for what I, at least, have described as "time based" is "move-counter
> move" (MCM - coined by Bob Jones, I think) or even better, IMHO,
> "structured turn sequence". STS? What do you think? Your term "terrain
> based" for Crossfire is a good one too, though I think "event based"
> describes it fairly well, too.

It works for me, Tim, although the previously-made suggestion of "fixed turn
sequence" and "variable turn sequence" might be even more accurate. Anyway,
thanks for the very kind words.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[Matt DLM]

Bob,

I really think there is some confusion when you use the word surprise - or
clearly we mean different things by the term. Of course, you are probably
talking more about tactical surprise, and I am more interested in strategic and
grand-tactical surprise.

BJ wrote of fixed sequence that it has a <<complete lack of surprise>>

I really don't think it is the turn sequence itself that creates the kind of
surprise of an Austerlitz .

In game terms, recreating an Austerlitz-like surprise would require:
1. Completely faulty strategic assessment by one side
2. Binding orders or objectives based on faulty assessment. (Most gamers would
not stick to the Allies plan if it were merely in their head).
2. Hidden movement and deployment (can't let the cat out of the bag)
3. Historically accurate time and distance ("In fifteen minutes you will attack
the Pratzen")
4. Realistic command and control
5. Historically accurate combat results

Matt DeLaMater

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <19991030001421...@ng-fs1.aol.com>, mat...@aol.com
says...

>
>Bob,
>
>I really think there is some confusion when you use the word surprise - or
>clearly we mean different things by the term. Of course, you are probably
>talking more about tactical surprise, and I am more interested in strategic and
>grand-tactical surprise.
>
>BJ wrote of fixed sequence that it has a <<complete lack of surprise>>
>
>I really don't think it is the turn sequence itself that creates the kind of
>surprise of an Austerlitz .

BJ: Matt, I was refering to the capacity for ANY events not to go as we expect
them to, and eliminating the capacity to know exactly what's coming next- a very
'unrealistic' ability.

I also look at the two battles most often mentioned by you and others as their
'touchstone' for Napoleonic warfare-Austerlitz and Waterloo- as surprisingly
atypical of Napoleonic battle on the whole.

Both battles were crushingly decisive, wheras most Napoleonic battles-even early
in the period-were surprisingly indecisive and narrowly won; both of the battles
mentioned above were won with 'surprise' strokes against a stretched and/or
faulty deployment , both showed especially expert tactical control by the
eventual victors, and both resulted in the TOTAL collapse of the
losers-effectively ending the campaign. This was a relatively rare result.
Jena-Auerstadt comes close, but even there, remnants of the Prussians, under
Lestocq, struggled on to Eylau( And Nappy was very confused as to just what part
of the Prussian Army he was fighting! Hardly an example of clear command and
Control!) )

If one were to offer an example of 'typical' Napoleonic battles- Borodino,
Leipsic, Eylau, Marengo, and Friedland might be better examples. Even more so
since the last three of the above were won by what Rothenburg calls
the"fortuitous arrival of detached forces". 'Fortuitous' speaks more to good
luck than timetable like planning.

>
>In game terms, recreating an Austerlitz-like surprise would require:
>1. Completely faulty strategic assessment by one side

BJ: Not critical to the tactical battle issues other than providing the initial
forces.

>2. Binding orders or objectives based on faulty assessment. (Most gamers would
>not stick to the Allies plan if it were merely in their head).

BJ: This may be better handled by visiting on the Allied commander the same
problem that he faced at Austerlitz-once he was heavily committed to a flank
combat, and had committed his reserves, it would be difficult to counter-march
or re-deploy to cover the center-even if he could have sent the orders. A
scenario 'point value' for certain objectives(In PK this would correspond to
morale points) would encourage the historical objectives of the historical
commanders be used by the players.

The French player would, of course, have different point values, including one
for the Pratzen-and might be allowed double movement(heroic movement) on any two
infantry move cards used during the game as a scenario condition-certainly
morale and quality rolls could be scenario specific. (when one writes a set of
rules for an entire period-the easiest way to acquire specificity for a
particular battle is through scenario adjustments-not trying to cover everything
in the core rules-this is where PK is amazingly adaptable.)

>2. Hidden movement and deployment (can't let the cat out of the bag)

BJ: Barring using the clumsy 'hidden units' mechanic, hidden rating of units,
disparate morale values, and the sequence deck mix-coupled with the vaguaries of
variable sequence-replicates this fairly well.

>3. Historically accurate time and distance ("In fifteen minutes you will attack
>the Pratzen")

BJ: Since all time is relative-and in any case is expressed as "turns"-this is
easily handled by a Sequence Deck as it is by what Jim Getz called "One hour
Event Boxes".

>4. Realistic command and control

BJ: If 'realistic'(you do love that vague qualification) means limited and
imposing inefficiencies on the gamer's perfect control in some way that reflects
the relative quality of the opposing armies in this regard-yes.

>5. Historically accurate combat results

BJ: Actually-this is also such a morass of completely relative, arbitrary and,
between rules, inconsistent values, that I don't think you can name any rule set
that will fulfill everyone's expectation of "accurate".

At best a relative factor, and usually gives a result of win-lose or heavy-light
casualties. Casualties are usually defined loosely by most rules as including
killed, wounded, deserters, morale losses, which may be more or less of an
impact than actual men lost, and/or loss of combat efficiency-an all
encompassing term. No set of rules that you can name can conclusively support
its casualties as being a predictor of Napoleonic battle as an objective result.
At best the 'proportionality' claim may be made.

Finally, I would like to speak to the illusory quality of refighting historical
battles rather than fictional battles.

Some gamers seem locked into refighting actual engagements and judge their rule
set solely on the degree that it, to them, recreates the historical results in
some rough way.

This approach is fraught with problems, among them are:

1. In the real engagement-niether side had close knowledge of the exact forces
opposite them-either in numbers or quality-In most historical refights both
sides are totally aware of this.

2. Some quirks of terrain were only discovered in battle-totally known to both
sides in a typical refight.

3. 'Surprise' arrivals of reinforcements are known as if on a train schedule.
Even when variable arrival is allowed-the defending army realizes the threat and
moves to respond well in advance of historical probability.

4. The original 'solution' to the initial deployment are known and , rather
like a puzzle solved, usually asks little insight or creativity from the player.

5. Nobody really "knew" what was going to happen either in a Grand tactical
sense or a Tactical sense until it happened. Sounds sorta self-evident, but
re-fights often contravene this condidition.

The degree of these 'Fixed' constants when overlayed with "Fixed" sequence",
"Fixed" troop values, often MCM, obvious combat results tables, and the known
result of history, encourages rule sets that ask little of the gamer but rolling
the dice and remembering arcane rules. These rule sets are usually heavily
historical OB driven and fail to work very well without that firm structure
imposed(V&B comes to mind-most of that list's messages are OB centered).
Following the rules essentially becomes following orders.

Replicating the History of Napoleonic battles and modeling Napoleonic Combat are
not necessarily the same thing! (That ought to get some comment!!!)

I vastly prefer battles created by scenario that are "new" to the gamer, as they
provide a far more interesting gaming environment. This isn't to say that
historical refights aren't a nice change of pace-what other game are you going
to play on June 18th but Waterloo!?

But I think the hobby breaks up into two distinct groups those who ONLY fight
historical refights- and those that, like myself, prefer the challenge of
battles not yet fought!

It is no surprise that gamers who prefer fixed systems, low friction, high
levels of situational knowledge and firm control are probably attracted to the
"known givens" of historical refights,. while many of the rest of us prefer
higher levels of variability, creative problem solving, and the challenge of the
unknown. I find most historical refights quite tedious and predictable-as do
most of my gaming buddies.

BJ

[Phil Myers]

I'd even differ just a little bit more: in Empire, each engaged unit gets to
act once until something in its division fails at an action, then move on to
the next division. Each division does get to act, so at that level it is a
sorta MCM, but not all divisions will be active on all three impulses.
There's interesting variability here, might try throwing all divisions that
are active in an impulse to throw a card in the pot, then draw to see who
moves one next, possibly even with the black box of the computer determining
number of impulses and their order, also useable for bombardment segments.
Phil
Matt DLM wrote in message <19991028230940...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>Scott,

[Matt DLM]

Bob Jones wrote: <<I also look at the two battles most often mentioned by you

and others as their 'touchstone' for Napoleonic warfare-Austerlitz and
Waterloo- as surprisingly atypical of Napoleonic battle on the whole.>>

I don't think that this invalidates the comparisons between these battles and
rules systems. They are not my "touchstones" but do provide a sounding point.

Bob continues: <<Both battles were crushingly decisive, wheras most Napoleonic

battles-even early in the period-were surprisingly indecisive and narrowly won;
both of the battles mentioned above were won with 'surprise' strokes against a
stretched and/or
faulty deployment , both showed especially expert tactical control by the
eventual victors, and both resulted in the TOTAL collapse of the
losers-effectively ending the campaign. >>

How is this relevant for our discussion? I don't agree that a battle's
decisiveness somehow limits its usefulness a rules source. Also, I would
hesitate to claim that Waterloo was not "narrowly won" - even Wellington admits
it was "a near run thing".

<<The French player would, of course, have different point values, including
one
for the Pratzen-and might be allowed double movement(heroic movement) on any
two
infantry move cards used during the game as a scenario condition>>

So, the French movement rates at Austerlitz - because of the decisive outcome -
were unusual and require special rules adjustments??

You have again confirmed my recommendation that you should examine the
time-distance-fire ratios in Les Grognards.

I find the idea that PK is "amazingly adaptable" sort of passing the buck on to
the gamer. All games are adaptable. It is nice that PK gamers feel empowered to
modify the rules and that you encourage it. But the plethora of variants for
F&F and Napoleon's Battles suggest that they are "amazingly adaptable" as well.

<<If one were to offer an example of 'typical' Napoleonic battles- Borodino,
Leipsic, Eylau, Marengo, and Friedland might be better examples.>>

I would agree that these battles should be studied and given equal weight to
Austerlitz and Waterloo. I would disagree that
Leipzig, Marengo, and Friedland were not decisive battles.

Matt DeLaMater

[Matt DLM]

BJ <<No set of rules that you can name can conclusively support

its casualties as being a predictor of Napoleonic battle as an objective
result.>>

No rule set is making such a stupid claim.
Matt DeLaMater

[Matt DLM]

BJ:<<Replicating the History of Napoleonic battles and modeling Napoleonic

Combat are
not necessarily the same thing! (That ought to get some comment!!!)>>

The lack of comment this insight generated is telling.

<<But I think the hobby breaks up into two distinct groups those who ONLY fight
historical refights- and those that, like myself, prefer the challenge of
battles not yet fought!>>

I think you are wrong - I do not see a divide here. Anyone else? Both kinds of
games have their appeal for the reasons you state.

BJ <<It is no surprise that gamers who prefer fixed systems, low friction, high

levels of situational knowledge and firm control are probably attracted to the

"known givens" of historical refights, while many of the rest of us prefer

higher levels of variability, creative problem solving, and the challenge of
the
unknown. I find most historical refights quite tedious and predictable-as do
most of my gaming buddies.>>

You really are the master of creating straw men.

Many of us who do not match your initial premise find historical re-fights
quite interesting - although "hindsight" is always an issue that can be dealt
with using special rules (or extra cards).

To paraphrase you BJ, it is no surprise that gamers who prefer randomized
systems where "the table lies" avoid historical refights for fear their results
might be exposed as historically problematic.

Gosh, its easy to argue when you always define the opposing position first!

BJ << I find most historical refights quite tedious and predictable-as do

most of my gaming buddies.>>

Why would they be tedious and predictable using a tactical set of rules that
has so much randomization?

Matt DeLaMater

[Martin Rapier]

Matt DLM <mat...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19991108205451...@ng-cp1.aol.com>...
{snip}

> How is this relevant for our discussion? I don't agree that a battle's
> decisiveness somehow limits its usefulness a rules source. Also, I would
> hesitate to claim that Waterloo was not "narrowly won" - even Wellington
admits
> it was "a near run thing".

{snip}

Funnily enough we did Waterloo/Wavre last week (using my horrendous 1 base
= 1 Div/Corps rules on an area approx 2' across!), and much to my utter
amazement the final results ended up in broad correspondance with the
historical outcome.

Poor old Grouchy spent three hours banging his head against Thielmann at
Wavre before retiring to skulk in the woods, the Prussian militia putting
up a surprisingly effective resistance. Napoleon & Ney decided to shift
their attack onto the British left flank - setting La Haye Ste on fire
quite early on and marching against an unoccupied Papelotte. An utterly
heroic British cavalry charge disrupted the first assault (and with follow
ups managed to rout four French cavalry divisions), but by mid afternoon
the French infantry, with the Guard in the van, took La Haye Sainte and
rolled majestically over the Allied line on the ridge. All seemed to be
lost for the Brits as they were now one base away from their army
breakpoint with most of their troops skulking in the Foret de Soignies, but
the French extension of their right allowed the Prussian main body into
early contact and the succeeded in routing the French to their face, who
promptly fled directly across the British front. The only formed British
unit left was Wellington and his staff (!) who promptly spurred their
horses forwards and ran down the French routers, this was enough to tip the
French losses over their breakpoint and the Armee du Nord streamed for the
rear in disorder at 5.00pm. Excellent fun, and an ideal example of how to
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - Napoleon in particular seemed
stunned by this turn of events and retired to the bar for a foaming
pint....

Cheers
Martin.

[Brick]

Bob,

These three statements of yours bring to mind an interesting series of underlying
questions I would like to pose to you.

#1.

> Finally, I would like to speak to the illusory quality of refighting historical
> battles rather than fictional battles.
>
> Some gamers seem locked into refighting actual engagements and judge their rule
> set solely on the degree that it, to them, recreates the historical results in
> some rough way.

#2.

>
> I vastly prefer battles created by scenario that are "new" to the gamer, as they
> provide a far more interesting gaming environment. This isn't to say that
> historical refights aren't a nice change of pace-what other game are you going
> to play on June 18th but Waterloo!?
>
> But I think the hobby breaks up into two distinct groups those who ONLY fight
> historical refights- and those that, like myself, prefer the challenge of

> battles not yet fought.

#3.

>
> It is no surprise that gamers who prefer fixed systems, low friction, high
> levels of situational knowledge and firm control are probably attracted to the
> "known givens" of historical refights,. while many of the rest of us prefer
> higher levels of variability, creative problem solving, and the challenge of the
> unknown. I find most historical refights quite tedious and predictable-as do
> most of my gaming buddies.
>
> BJ

All these statements point to one obvious answer that I'm sure you must be some what
conscious of by now, "Dedicated (historical) Napoleonic Wargamers are not going to
use 'Piquet' to refight historical Napoleonic Battles". There's an insufficient
link (Event, Cause & Effect) to the historical audit trail to make it worth while.
Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers are probably as much or more interested in the
history of the warfare as they are in the wargaming. It's a symbiotic relationship
which seems to directly feed and fuel each other. This is why combat modeling
appeals more to to this group.

So, I think the answer to the question you appear to be posing above is really not
about approaches to wargame design, so much as it's one of Napoleonic Wargamer
Demographics.

I'd be willing to guess that the majority of your PK customers are made up of a
group I would call 'Social Wargamers'. The true game player. Interested in mainly
the camaraderie that wargaming invokes. With a broad range of interests, not limited
to a single specific area or concentration. I'd also say that they're degree of
historical interest in the subject matter would not go much beyond basic familiarity
with the generally accepted facts. Technical details would not appeal to this
group. All this would tend to be needless baggage to their overall objective which
is primarily social gaming.

Cross check this idea with Matt, Wm. K. or Scot B. they're the leads in the
historical Napoleonic wargame group. I'm sure you as the CEO of PK Inc., must have
done a customer survey by now. What's do the demographics look like? You know,
Age, Education, Interest and Occupation? Wargame Demographics would make for some
very interesting discussions.

Regards,...James

[F. Joseph Fox]

Brick wrote:I'd be willing to guess that the majority of your PK customers are made up
of a

> group I would call 'Social Wargamers'. The true game player. Interested in mainly
> the camaraderie that wargaming invokes. With a broad range of interests, not limited
> to a single specific area or concentration. I'd also say that they're degree of
> historical interest in the subject matter would not go much beyond basic familiarity
> with the generally accepted facts. Technical details would not appeal to this
> group. All this would tend to be needless baggage to their overall objective which
> is primarily social gaming.

I know this question was posed to Bob Jones, the author of Piquet, but I just
couldn't let this pass unchallenged.
Everybody "wargames" (if I may invent a verb) for different reasons. Perhaps you
are interested in recreating historical results on the tabletop; another player may
enjoy painting armies with pretty uniforms; still another may enjoy the tactical flavor
of a certain period. In any event, different people are drawn to different rule systems
for different reasons.
There are twelve regular members of the group with which I play some of my games.
Ten of us are reenactors of at least five years' experience, and all of us reenact
different time periods (I happen to enjoy the ECW, ACW and Napoleonic periods). Six of
us have our humble degrees in military history from pretty damned good history schools.
Two of us are doing joint graduate work on the Westphalian army. The other six who do
not hold degrees ought to by default. Each one of us is absolutely enthralled with the
Napoleonic period, and I'd put any one of them up against anyone else in a "Napoleonic
pop quiz."
All of us have at least eight years' worth of experience in wargaming; I happen to
have twelve. I've played and owned March of Eagles, Empire, Navwar rules, Legacy of
Glory, Shako, Le Petit Empereur, Valmy to Waterloo, Chef de Battallion, Napoleon's
Battles, Houserules Napoleonics, Guard du Corps, and a few other rulesets I can't
remember in my old age. Most of the games in which I played felt more like an exercise
in bladder control than a battle. Then I purchased Piquet at a store here in Columbus.
The rules give each of us exactly what we've been wanting in a rule set all along - the
feel and frustration of "real" combat (such as can be recreated on a sand table). I
don't have to wade through a hundred tables to find out if a battalion gets to turn
right; I don't have to roll a hundred dice to see if an order arrives. All kinds of
battlefield accidents occur in our Piquet games without the need for a rulebook six
inches thick, and - best of all - it's *random.*
None of this should be construed as an indictment against any of the fine rules sets
mentioned above (particularly Legacy of Glory, which I still own). But I find it
impossible to believe that the twelve of us are absolutely unique among the customers of
Piquet. Most of the games I run are public participation games at the local hobby shop,
and the players who participate are not in my regular group. Sure, I find the
occasional "Hey! What's this game you're playing?" guy, but most of the people who show
up to play at the appointed time are knowledgeable, insightful, fiercely interested in
history and progressive in their thinking about how a battlefield simulation should
appear and feel. Most of the people who've been showing over the last year that I've
owned Piquet are regualr wargamers themselves, and they bring their own armies.
With all due respect, any doubts about whether the "average" Piquet player is
knowledgeable about the period which interests him can be answered by subscribing to the
Piquet mailing list. I've received a treasure trove of insights by bouncing ideas off
those people. Listen in for a week, and see if Piquet players know their subject.
Better yet, play a few games yourself before making sweeping generalisations about the
people who support and play Piquet.

Good gaming!
--
F. Joseph Fox
Circulation Manager, "The Lantern," Ohio State University

Private, 1st Tennessee Vols, Company B, "Rock City Guards"
Pikeman, Hay's Company, Strathbogie's Regiment, Scots Royalists

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <382B1D02...@worldnet.att.net>, Brick says...

>
>Bob,
>
>These three statements of yours bring to mind an interesting series of
>underlying
>questions I would like to pose to you.
>
>#1.
>

>>Finally, I would like to speak to the illusory quality of refighting historical
>> battles rather than fictional battles.
>>
>>Some gamers seem locked into refighting actual engagements and judge their rule
>>set solely on the degree that it, to them, recreates the historical results in
>> some rough way.
>

>#2.

>
>>
>>I vastly prefer battles created by scenario that are "new" to the gamer, as they
>> provide a far more interesting gaming environment. This isn't to say that
>>historical refights aren't a nice change of pace-what other game are you going
>> to play on June 18th but Waterloo!?
>>
>> But I think the hobby breaks up into two distinct groups those who ONLY fight
>> historical refights- and those that, like myself, prefer the challenge of

>> battles not yet fought.
>
>#3.

>
>>
>> It is no surprise that gamers who prefer fixed systems, low friction, high
>>levels of situational knowledge and firm control are probably attracted to the
>> "known givens" of historical refights,. while many of the rest of us prefer
>>higher levels of variability, creative problem solving, and the challenge of the
>> unknown. I find most historical refights quite tedious and predictable-as do
>> most of my gaming buddies.
>>
>> BJ
>

>All these statements point to one obvious answer that I'm sure you must be some
>what
>conscious of by now, "Dedicated (historical) Napoleonic Wargamers are not going
>to
>use 'Piquet' to refight historical Napoleonic Battles". There's an insufficient
>link (Event, Cause & Effect) to the historical audit trail to make it worth
>while.
>Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers are probably as much or more interested in the
>history of the warfare as they are in the wargaming. It's a symbiotic
>relationship
>which seems to directly feed and fuel each other. This is why combat modeling
>appeals more to to this group.

BJ: I'm not sure anyone can "profile" the "dedicated(Historical) Napoleonic
Wargamer" or comment as to whether they would play Piquet. Jim Mauro was a
dedicated Legacy of Glory player, Jim Getz co-wrote Empire, Chuck lemons was a
Napoleon's battle player, etc. etc. I've been in wargaming and Napoleonics, off
and on, for 34 years.
Is that dedicated enough?

I do find a sub-set of Napoleonic gamers that are insufferable snobs and LIKE
TO BELIEVE they know oh, so much more about the subject. Usually, that is pure
self-referential egoism.

Major, Combat Modeling does not EXIST in any recreational wargames-and to
suggest that it does is a far, far greater "illusion" than anything Piquet has
ever suggested!

A case could be made that the reason this hobby is so small, and lacks growth is
that this overweening fixation on unsubstantiated, and often meaningless,
historical detail coupled with lame design, bad math, and banal processes, that
makes for damn boring, long, and inconclusive gaming experiences.

To the degree it allows pedants to cluck and peck over some little factoid in
order to impress the peanut gallery, or more often, to "correct" someone of
"lesser" understanding-it has done more to drive people from wargaming than any
other attitude!

Thank God the other periods are less demanding in this regard(Though some
ancient gamer's fascination with unprovable minor detail occaisionally rivals
their Napoleonic cousins) or the only people left in wargaming would be playing
fantasy! (As it is, the majority of wargamers play fantasy-this has occured in
the last 25 years. I wonder why?)

>
>So, I think the answer to the question you appear to be posing above is really
>not
>about approaches to wargame design, so much as it's one of Napoleonic Wargamer
>Demographics.
>

>I'd be willing to guess that the majority of your PK customers are made up of a
>group I would call 'Social Wargamers'. The true game player. Interested in
>mainly
>the camaraderie that wargaming invokes. With a broad range of interests, not
>limited
>to a single specific area or concentration. I'd also say that they're degree of
>historical interest in the subject matter would not go much beyond basic
>familiarity
>with the generally accepted facts. Technical details would not appeal to this
>group. All this would tend to be needless baggage to their overall objective
>which
>is primarily social gaming.

BJ: That is pure pedantic bullshit, and a case in point about my comments above.
This is a rather condecending attitude from people that have little basis for
their implied 'greater' knowledge.

As Joe Fox has commented, the Piquet group that I know are bright, well educated
people-many in very demanding and competitive "fast track " jobs. Check out
the mailer that has just moved to the Onelist.

I guess we can all compare degrees, written works, and I.Qs, but I doubt
"Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers (Historical)" would find much advantage there-in
fact, it might prove mildly embarrasing.

As to knowledge of the period-How about a "College Bowl" contest at Historicon?
I'll take Jim Getz, Jim Mauro, and two or three other Piquet buffs-pick your
team! Loser buys the champagne! HMGS could sell tickets. Gambling could be
encouraged-with Pat Condray running the book.

I would suspect that Piquet gamer's interests are broader than the Napoleonic
'specialists' so if the topic was general military history, we would enjoy an
even greater advantage-but let's keep it fair, 1792-1815?

I do hope the questions could get beyond OBs and drill rates, and include
broader social and political issues.

On the social side, I would agree that, as a group, this is a very
self-confident and outgoing group of people. The contrast between the "reading
room" ambience of a recent "dedicated" game at Fall-In!- that shared a room with
a very loud, raucus and energetic Piquet game was very illustrative of the lack
of energy found in some of the "simulation" schools of design. Many have come
to believe that the simulation school got its name when the "T" fell out of
stimulation!

>
>Cross check this idea with Matt, Wm. K. or Scot B. they're the leads in the
>historical Napoleonic wargame group.

BJ: Quelle dommage!

> I'm sure you as the CEO of PK Inc., must have
>done a customer survey by now. What's do the demographics look like? You know,
>Age, Education, Interest and Occupation?

BJ: Trust me, you don't want to go there! It might spoil your typically
unsubstantiated theory that Piquet players are good time charlies, who never
read history and are victim's of a failed education.

> Wargame Demographics would make for some
>very interesting discussions.

BJ: C'est a l'oeil qu'on connait l'ouvier.

BJ

PS-Any closer to publishing VD? ;-)

[Scott L. Karakas]

James,

Brick wrote:

> I'd be willing to guess that the majority of your PK customers are made up of a
> group I would call 'Social Wargamers'. The true game player. Interested in mainly
> the camaraderie that wargaming invokes. With a broad range of interests, not limited
> to a single specific area or concentration. I'd also say that they're degree of
> historical interest in the subject matter would not go much beyond basic familiarity
> with the generally accepted facts. Technical details would not appeal to this
> group. All this would tend to be needless baggage to their overall objective which
> is primarily social gaming.

As a person with a strong interest in ancient history, as well as a solo wargamer and
dedicated PK fan, who uses Archon primarily to recreate historical battles, I could not
more emphatically disagree with your hypothetical "PK Player Profile." Granted that I
represent a "scientific sample" of one, but my discussions over a two-year span with
other members of the PK Mailer leads me to believe that players of the system cannot be
as easily pigeon-holed as you seem to think.

While waiting for BJ to share his customer research with you (!), why not eavesdrop on
the mailer for a bit (it's recently moved to ONEList). While you will probably find
that social interaction and camaraderie is indeed important to many PK gamers, a large
number also take historical verisimilitude very seriously. One difference you probably
will find, is that not many of us are as interested in representing the effects of
*minute* differences in armor thickness or firearm caliber, as in recreating the
battlefield effects of morale and command "friction" on the tabletop.

Just my $0.02 cents worth - adjusted accordingly for inflation!

Scott K.

[Jay]

rjo...@rmi.net wrote:

>In article <382B1D02...@worldnet.att.net>, Brick says...

>>All these statements point to one obvious answer that I'm sure you must be some

>>what
>>conscious of by now, "Dedicated (historical) Napoleonic Wargamers are not going
>>to
>>use 'Piquet' to refight historical Napoleonic Battles".

I'm not sure how Jim derives this, but...?

>>Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers are probably as much or more interested in the
>>history of the warfare as they are in the wargaming. It's a symbiotic
>>relationship
>>which seems to directly feed and fuel each other. This is why combat modeling
>>appeals more to to this group.

That's a bit condecending don't you think?

>A case could be made that the reason this hobby is so small, and lacks growth is
>that this overweening fixation on unsubstantiated, and often meaningless,
>historical detail coupled with lame design, bad math, and banal processes, that
>makes for damn boring, long, and inconclusive gaming experiences.

Of course PK is the shining exception to all of the above. Pardon if I
don't buy it yet.

>Thank God the other periods are less demanding in this regard(Though some
>ancient gamer's fascination with unprovable minor detail occaisionally rivals
>their Napoleonic cousins) or the only people left in wargaming would be playing
>fantasy! (As it is, the majority of wargamers play fantasy-this has occured in
>the last 25 years. I wonder why?)

You haven't played WWI recently then.

>As Joe Fox has commented, the Piquet group that I know are bright, well educated
>people-many in very demanding and competitive "fast track " jobs. Check out
>the mailer that has just moved to the Onelist.

However, one could ask "so what?" And that seems to be Jim's point:
one can be bright, well-edicated and employed in a fourtune-500
business, but that doesn't mean one knows much about napoleonic
warfare (and hence, commenst about the "realism" of PK are no more
valid than those about other systems. But that's what you've said all
along, right?)

>I guess we can all compare degrees, written works, and I.Qs, but I doubt
>"Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers (Historical)" would find much advantage there-in
>fact, it might prove mildly embarrasing.

Hmm, I can think of one person who considers being published as an
important consideration. Why wouldn't an established competence in a
real armed force count for anything? Why would a degree in history
count for more than practical experience on a battlefield?

>I would suspect that Piquet gamer's interests are broader than the Napoleonic
>'specialists' so if the topic was general military history, we would enjoy an
>even greater advantage-but let's keep it fair, 1792-1815?

PK is a broad set of rules. One could, sight unseen, argue
convincingly that it's the "Swiss Army Knife" of rules sets: able to
do anything, but unable to do it well.

>I do hope the questions could get beyond OBs and drill rates, and include
>broader social and political issues.

Social issues? You wouldn't be a "social historian" would you? That
would be dissapointing. What with such important topics as womens'
issues in the Wars of the Roses and all.

>On the social side, I would agree that, as a group, this is a very
>self-confident and outgoing group of people. The contrast between the "reading
>room" ambience of a recent "dedicated" game at Fall-In!- that shared a room with
>a very loud, raucus and energetic Piquet game was very illustrative of the lack
>of energy found in some of the "simulation" schools of design. Many have come
>to believe that the simulation school got its name when the "T" fell out of
>stimulation!

Nice shot! But if loud and raucus is a prerequisite of a good game,
then anything played at the local is hgood (well, it is,after a few
pints)

>> I'm sure you as the CEO of PK Inc., must have
>>done a customer survey by now. What's do the demographics look like? You know,
>>Age, Education, Interest and Occupation?
>
>BJ: Trust me, you don't want to go there! It might spoil your typically
>unsubstantiated theory that Piquet players are good time charlies, who never
>read history and are victim's of a failed education.

Nice diversion Bob. If you don't want to answer the challenge, just
say so. Otherwise tell him the demographic (assuming you bothered, not
that it is a bad thing if you didn't). Maybe it'll be embarrassing to
him?

>BJ: C'est a l'oeil qu'on connait l'ouvier.

Puis?

Jay
"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at.
And missed."
W.S. Churchill
Remove the wildcard from the "reply-to" address
if replying by e-mail.

[Matt DLM]

BJ wrote: <<Major, Combat Modeling does not EXIST in any recreational

wargames-and to
suggest that it does is a far, far greater "illusion" than anything Piquet has
ever suggested!>>

Wow, Bob. What do you take "combat modeling" to mean as a term that it provokes
you so? I would guess that most wargamers wouldn't find this idea so
objectionable. If we aren't engaging in some form of combat modeling, what are
we doing?

BJ again: <<A case could be made that the reason this hobby is so small, and

lacks growth is that this overweening fixation on unsubstantiated, and often
meaningless,
historical detail coupled with lame design, bad math, and banal processes, that
makes for damn boring, long, and inconclusive gaming experiences.
To the degree it allows pedants to cluck and peck over some little factoid in
order to impress the peanut gallery, or more often, to "correct" someone of
"lesser" understanding-it has done more to drive people from wargaming than any
other attitude!>>

Considering that most convention games are along the lines of Fire and Fury &
Napoleon's Battles [or hosted by Pete Panzeri or Duke Siegfried] maybe you're a
bit off base here in blaming the other side of the hobby. Pretty hard to
scapegoat on the Major - he's run two games that I know of, and neither matched
your description!!!

<<As to knowledge of the period-How about a "College Bowl" contest at
Historicon? >>

Am I the only one who finds the idea of college bowls sophomoric? Why, BJ, are
you so anxious to have these publicly HMGS sanctioned pissing contsts? (isn't
this enough of one?)
Gosh, after the college bowl, I'll bet the Legacy of Glory Flag Football team
could kick the crap out of the PK squad! Let's compare S.A.T scores next-then
tax returns!

BJ <<The contrast between the "reading

room" ambience of a recent "dedicated" game at Fall-In!- that shared a room
with
a very loud, raucus and energetic Piquet game was very illustrative of the lack
of energy found in some of the "simulation" schools of design. >>

Bully for PK! If loud and raucus is your thing, great - I enjoy games like that
myself, particularly Republic of Rome and Junta. And, if we are going to use
decibels to determine the greatest miniature's game, I guess Todd Fisher's
Tuileries' games and one of the big Alamo extravaganzas must be the winners.

I am not sure what "dedicated" game you were referring to [smearing with a
broad brush as usual I suppose], but it is possible they were deeply enjoying
themselves but in a different sort of way. Some of the best games I've ever
played were FlatTop contests against my brother -incredibly tense, nailbiting
affairs that we enjoyed tremendously - but not very loud or raucus (so quiet
mostly, you could here the proverbial pin drop).

Matt DeLaMater

[William McHarg]

On 13 Nov 1999 06:00:14 GMT, mat...@aol.com (Matt DLM) wrote:

>Am I the only one who finds the idea of college bowls sophomoric? Why, BJ, are
>you so anxious to have these publicly HMGS sanctioned pissing contsts? (isn't
>this enough of one?)
>Gosh, after the college bowl, I'll bet the Legacy of Glory Flag Football team
>could kick the crap out of the PK squad! Let's compare S.A.T scores next-then
>tax returns!

For the PK side of the SAT's.. 1310 combined score. 640 on the
verbal, 670 on the math. Of course that was in 1971.. :)

The group I game with most used to be into MCM games almost entirely.
We have gamed together for 19 years now. Over the years, we found
that gaming did take on more of a social aspect. But that is just our
experience. My brother, who is about 5 years younger than me
recently made the observation that he would "rather spit up a dead
rat" than play PK. He tends to be into the simulation end of the
gaming spectrum. He also comes up with colorful sayings now and
again..

From my limited perspective (I havent played PK with a wide variety of
people) I have found that its not the age, education, etc.. Its an
interest in a certain type of problem solving that makes a PK player.
If you want to model the low-level nuts and bolts of war, PK is
probably not for you. If you like the tension of trying to adapt to
changing, difficult circumstances during a battle, PK works great.
Its not the only way to do that, but its a very good one.

But of course the endless boogie will continue..

Bill McHarg

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <19991113010014...@ng-bg1.aol.com>, mat...@aol.com
says...
>
>BJ wrote: <<Major, Combat Modeling does not EXIST in any recreational

>wargames-and to
>suggest that it does is a far, far greater "illusion" than anything Piquet has
>ever suggested!>>
>

>Wow, Bob. What do you take "combat modeling" to mean as a term that it provokes
>you so? I would guess that most wargamers wouldn't find this idea so
>objectionable. If we aren't engaging in some form of combat modeling, what are
>we doing?

BJ: Well, Matt, there are two ways of looking at this; Either taking a rather
broad definition of the term 'combat modeling' in which case we are all, from
Warhammer to Valmy to Waterloo, attempting to model a combat environment in a
wide variety of ways; OR, as I read the Major as intending, somehow accurately
rendering the pertinent realities of combat based on hard data, and yielding
objective results(in the major's case 'down to the minute' based on 27 specific
examples).

In the latter case, neither the firm data, nor testable predictive results,
exist. Every wargame on the market asks the gamer to make a leap of faith, to
exercise a 'suspension of disbelief' as is found in the theater, and to
imaginatively use the rules to create in his mind the illusion of period combat
using toy soldiers. And, just as in theater, art, novels, or film different
people need different creative works to create, for them, this imaginative
'special place'.

The reason that there are so many diverse sets of rules, all ostensibly covering
the same periods, the same facts, the same history, is not because one or two
rules got it 'right' and all the rest are 'bad' history, or have it wrong, but,
rather, that, just as some people like modern art and others enjoy the masters;
some prefer Beethoven to Smashing Pumpkins, and others read Peter Mayle,
instead of Huxley-it is a matter of subjective pereference-not objective
'truths'.

The people that play LoG or Piquet do it because they enjoy it-not because the
WEIGHT OF HISTORICAL FACT forces them one way or the other. And, one would
suppose that the history in a game a wargamer plays and enjoys is accurate and
supportable enough for him, or he would seek out other rules.
>
>BJ again: <<A case could be made that the reason this hobby is so small, and

>lacks growth is that this overweening fixation on unsubstantiated, and often
>meaningless,
>historical detail coupled with lame design, bad math, and banal processes, that
>makes for damn boring, long, and inconclusive gaming experiences.
>To the degree it allows pedants to cluck and peck over some little factoid in
>order to impress the peanut gallery, or more often, to "correct" someone of
>"lesser" understanding-it has done more to drive people from wargaming than any
>other attitude!>>
>

>Considering that most convention games are along the lines of Fire and Fury &
>Napoleon's Battles [or hosted by Pete Panzeri or Duke Siegfried] maybe you're a
>bit off base here in blaming the other side of the hobby. Pretty hard to
>scapegoat on the Major - he's run two games that I know of, and neither matched
>your description!!!

BJ: If I may be perfectly clear, it isn't the rules that I was referring to, but
the attitude of some gamers that pursue the chimera of 'historical purity' that
is so off-putting-the rules are only a tool they use to provide wargamers with
wargames that are "good for them.'" as opposed to games they see as enjoyable,
but lacking didactic historicity.

My point is that the history in 99% of wargames is surprisingly similar,
particulary on those facts that are supportable and provable; the differences
are in the design issues: ease of play, fun, time of play, accessibility, and,
most importantly, the gamer's subjective perception of the rule set's 'Realism'.

>
><<As to knowledge of the period-How about a "College Bowl" contest at
>Historicon? >>
>

>Am I the only one who finds the idea of college bowls sophomoric? Why, BJ, are
>you so anxious to have these publicly HMGS sanctioned pissing contsts? (isn't
>this enough of one?)
>Gosh, after the college bowl, I'll bet the Legacy of Glory Flag Football team
>could kick the crap out of the PK squad! Let's compare S.A.T scores next-then
>tax returns!

BJ: I can understand your reluctance to publicly debate these issues. I do
think it would be fun-certainly a step up from some of the self-serving
one-sided seminars we have all sponsored, given, and attended, and the dynamic
of conflicting ideas in a face to face arena would be entertaining for more than
a few people. The Madding Crowd always enjoys a good fight! Look at the
success of WWF wrestling! Ah, yes! Piqueteer Jones vrs. the LOG Man!
>
>BJ <<The contrast between the "reading

>room" ambience of a recent "dedicated" game at Fall-In!- that shared a room
>with
>a very loud, raucus and energetic Piquet game was very illustrative of the lack
>of energy found in some of the "simulation" schools of design. >>
>

>Bully for PK! If loud and raucus is your thing, great - I enjoy games like that
>myself, particularly Republic of Rome and Junta. And, if we are going to use
>decibels to determine the greatest miniature's game, I guess Todd Fisher's
>Tuileries' games and one of the big Alamo extravaganzas must be the winners.
>
>I am not sure what "dedicated" game you were referring to [smearing with a
>broad brush as usual I suppose], but it is possible they were deeply enjoying
>themselves but in a different sort of way. Some of the best games I've ever
>played were FlatTop contests against my brother -incredibly tense, nailbiting
>affairs that we enjoyed tremendously - but not very loud or raucus (so quiet
>mostly, you could here the proverbial pin drop).

BJ: Funny, but the engagement of people in a game, and a free expression of
their enjoyment always struck me as a good thing-I agree that some games are far
quieter and still enjoyable-but when I think of the thing we are 'modeling', a
battle, I think shouting, yelling, fast decisions, and a certain level of noise
and confusion are closer to the actual thing than an environment modeling the
ivory towered cloisters of the 'serious' and 'dedicated' historian cum-wargamer.

BJ
>

[nuk...@worldnet.att.net]

Well not quite. The National Training Center at Fort Irwin is instrumented to
in fact collect firings, near misses [as calculated by the system], kills,
location, etc. I've worked with the data. It exists. Rotations [training
exercises] through the NTC have generated enough data on specific operations,
force structures, and topography to permit sensitivity studys [i.e. change
this parameter within the exercise and ajudge the impact upon results].
For professionals [uniformed military], access to the data is through the
Center for Army Lessons Learned [CALL]. A good number of professionals and
contractors are doing predictive models on that data.
So some 'data' does exist on a very very specific environment in a very
specific time frame.

DAW

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <382ce7ca...@news.igs.net>, mjma...@suicideking.igs.net
says...
<,snip>>

>>>Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers are probably as much or more interested in the
>>>history of the warfare as they are in the wargaming. It's a symbiotic
>>>relationship
>>>which seems to directly feed and fuel each other. This is why combat modeling
>>>appeals more to to this group.
>

>That's a bit condecending don't you think?

BJ: Those are the Major's words, not mine.

>
>>A case could be made that the reason this hobby is so small, and lacks growth is
>>that this overweening fixation on unsubstantiated, and often meaningless,
>>historical detail coupled with lame design, bad math, and banal processes, that
>>makes for damn boring, long, and inconclusive gaming experiences.
>

>Of course PK is the shining exception to all of the above. Pardon if I
>don't buy it yet.

BJ: Well, Jay, I'm pretty proud of Piquet and feel very confident about the
design and math, but I would be the first to agree that each gamer must make his
own determination of what works for him. I do think that some popular games
have some pretty suspect math premises, and substantial misunderstandings of
chance, randomness, odds, and probability-slathered over by layers of tables,
charts, and elaborate process, but if it floats your boat so be it.

>
>>Thank God the other periods are less demanding in this regard(Though some
>>ancient gamer's fascination with unprovable minor detail occaisionally rivals
>>their Napoleonic cousins) or the only people left in wargaming would be playing
>>fantasy! (As it is, the majority of wargamers play fantasy-this has occured in
>>the last 25 years. I wonder why?)
>

>You haven't played WWI recently then.

BJ: I presume you mean WWII? And, yes, I agree that the "Tank and Clanks" crowd
with their guns vrs. millimeters of armor are about as lost in unprovable
fantasy as any Napoleonic time/motion study.

Even more curious is the generally complete blindness to formation, C&C, morale,
and doctrine in that period in deference to the gun/armor fantasies. This leads
to even platoon and company actions being essentially skirmish games writ large.
It also accounts for the preponderance of skirmish level games in this period.
Many WWII gamers want to be sergeants, not Captains or generals.

>
>>As Joe Fox has commented, the Piquet group that I know are bright, well educated
>>people-many in very demanding and competitive "fast track " jobs. Check out
>>the mailer that has just moved to the Onelist.
>

>However, one could ask "so what?" And that seems to be Jim's point:
>one can be bright, well-edicated and employed in a fourtune-500
>business, but that doesn't mean one knows much about napoleonic
>warfare (and hence, commenst about the "realism" of PK are no more
>valid than those about other systems. But that's what you've said all
>along, right?)

BJ: Jay, in all deference to the Major, I hardly think that anyone in
Napoleonic Wargaming for more than a few years is a naif when it comes to the
subject matter. I am amused that each decade a group of wargame/historians
come along that think they have found some devastating breakthrough fact that
has been totally overlooked by their predecessors. They see themselves as the
possessors of some Rossetta Stone of Historical data.

A case may be made that new game mechanics, innovative design approaches can and
do come along-but the bones of Napoleonic history have been picked over for
nearly 200 years and the chances of finding some undiscovered piece of meat, not
as yet gnawed clean, is very, very slight.

That the nature of the bones may be argued over(to no fixed conclusion) is
inescapable and has made Napoleonics a small industry. What would Greenhill do
without yet another 'in depth' study!!!

>
>>I guess we can all compare degrees, written works, and I.Qs, but I doubt
>>"Dedicated Napoleonic Wargamers (Historical)" would find much advantage there-in
>>fact, it might prove mildly embarrasing.
>

>Hmm, I can think of one person who considers being published as an
>important consideration. Why wouldn't an established competence in a
>real armed force count for anything? Why would a degree in history
>count for more than practical experience on a battlefield?

BJ: Probably wouldn't, though I suspect that the modern battlefield's parallels
to the Napoleonic battlefield would be few-other than in issues of leadership
and morale. Being a Major in the US Army would not necessarily lend credence to
the speaker's expertise on Napoleonic history, either.

>
>>I would suspect that Piquet gamer's interests are broader than the Napoleonic
>>'specialists' so if the topic was general military history, we would enjoy an
>>even greater advantage-but let's keep it fair, 1792-1815?
>

>PK is a broad set of rules. One could, sight unseen, argue
>convincingly that it's the "Swiss Army Knife" of rules sets: able to
>do anything, but unable to do it well.

BJ: Well... obviously, some people think it does quite well. Piquet is not
really any more broad in its given periods than most of its competitors just
less baroque. I would also say that for the average man, the Swiss Army Knife
is more useful at any number of tasks than the heavy, two handed sword with 5
foot blade that some rule sets would represent.

>
>>I do hope the questions could get beyond OBs and drill rates, and include
>>broader social and political issues.
>

>Social issues? You wouldn't be a "social historian" would you? That
>would be dissapointing. What with such important topics as womens'
>issues in the Wars of the Roses and all.

BJ: No war or battle has existed in history in a vacuum. The social and
political influences on the battlefield are immense. Many a wargamer places his
view of battles solely on a gun/armor, drill per minute basis and never thinks
about, or considers, wider issues of the period. Nor do some wargamers try to
analyse the actions and outcomes in terms of the social and political contexts
they exist within.

For instance, in Marlborough's time a "golden Bridge" for retreat from battle,
rather than fighting to the last man was provided-as a visceral reaction to the
extremes and depradations of the Thirty Year's War.

The abject failure of German Armies to win wars in the 20th century, even though
often tactically superior, is a direct off-shoot of the internal social and
political absurdities and horrors that the German Nation and People created.
>
<<snip>>

>
>>> I'm sure you as the CEO of PK Inc., must have
>>>done a customer survey by now. What's do the demographics look like? You know,
>>>Age, Education, Interest and Occupation?
>>
>>BJ: Trust me, you don't want to go there! It might spoil your typically
>>unsubstantiated theory that Piquet players are good time charlies, who never
>>read history and are victim's of a failed education.
>

>Nice diversion Bob. If you don't want to answer the challenge, just
>say so. Otherwise tell him the demographic (assuming you bothered, not
>that it is a bad thing if you didn't). Maybe it'll be embarrassing to
>him?

BJ: I have consistently supported a hobby-wide study of the demos of wargaming.
In the case of Piquet. we do have names, interests, and purchase histories on
many customers, but nothing beyond this, other than the informal exposure to
our customers on the mailer, at conventions, and at the Chevalier Dinner. The
value of such a demo study would only exist if their were a hobby "standard" to
measure it against. Alas, HMGS-East has never seen the value of such a
hobby-wide study.

My decidedly unscientific opinion is that it's a very smart group,
knowledgeable, and insightful-certainly nothing has been said to lead me to
believe that they are less informed than any "Dedicated Napoleonic
Wargamer(Historical)" about their understandings of Napoleonic History.

BJ

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <382DB0DF...@worldnet.att.net>, nuk...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>rjo...@rmi.net wrote:
<<snip>>

>>
>
>Well not quite. The National Training Center at Fort Irwin is instrumented to
>in fact collect firings, near misses [as calculated by the system], kills,
>location, etc. I've worked with the data. It exists. Rotations [training
>exercises] through the NTC have generated enough data on specific operations,
>force structures, and topography to permit sensitivity studys [i.e. change
>this parameter within the exercise and ajudge the impact upon results].
>For professionals [uniformed military], access to the data is through the
>Center for Army Lessons Learned [CALL]. A good number of professionals and
>contractors are doing predictive models on that data.
>So some 'data' does exist on a very very specific environment in a very
>specific time frame.
>
>DAW

BJ: For modern actions with current equipment, of course! If they are studying
Napoleonic warfare, and have unearthed new hard data, and are testing
Charleville muskets-I'm sure taxpayers would question their activities!

I look forward to the NTC asking for re-enactment groups to volunteer to use
live ammo in order to test the data!

BJ

[Jay]

mjma...@suicideking.igs.net (Jay) wrote:

What a disaster!

>You haven't played WWI recently then.

Should read "...WWII...."

>However, one could ask "so what?" And that seems to be Jim's point:
>one can be bright, well-edicated and employed in a fourtune-500
>business, but that doesn't mean one knows much about napoleonic
>warfare (and hence, commenst about the "realism" of PK are no more
>valid than those about other systems. But that's what you've said all
>along, right?)

Like the law of "spell flames" any mention of intellect or education
in a post inevitably results in embarrassing spelling errors.

Maybe I should say "typing errors?"

[Brick]

Bob,

Are you starting to lose your renown sense of humor? ;^)

Since, too many of our discussion seem to degenerate into the same old 'circular
arguments', with the 'usual suspects' involved. I thought it would be more
interesting to just cut to the chase and see what kind of person plays PK? To
answer that question you need to know what the PK Demographics are.

I've visited your web sites (even left you a message) and haven't found to many
answers other than a clue in the form of the PK Book list. Which is currently made
up of mostly novels. Which suggest that 'historical image' not necessarily the
historical information, is important to the group. Then again your right!, I don't
understand 'recreational wargaming' or the people that play them. But, If I'm ever
going to steal these people away from you, I will need to know what makes them tick
and why they play.

I've been looking into determining a Chaos/FOW/Friction factor for my 'unpublished
game design'. I've been using the NTC Lesson Learned that 'DAW' mentioned to you
almost exclusively. Some of the parallel patterns I've uncovered are most uncanny.
Seems to indicate quite convincingly that, "warfare is warfare" and that humans
beings tend to be the universal constant throughout its course. Just look at these
two vignettes.

1. THEN (Talavera1809):
"The French charged with shouldered arms as was their custom. When they arrived at
short range, and the English line remained motionless, some hesitation was seen in
the march. The officers and NCO's shouted at the soldiers, 'forward; march; don't
fire'. Some even cried, 'They're surrendering'. The forward movement was therefore
resumed; but it was not until extremely close range of the English line that the
latter started a two rank fire which carried destruction into the heart of the
French line, and stopped its movement, and produced some disorder. While the offers
shouted to the soldiers 'forward; Don't open fire' (although firing set in
nevertheless), the English suddenly stopped their own fire and charged with bayonet.
Everything was favorable to them; orderliness, impetus, and the resolution to fight
with the bayonet. Among the French, on the other hand, there was no longer any
impetus, but disorder and the surprise caused by the enemy's unexpected resolve, the
flight was inevitable" ---General Chambray @ Talavera.

2. NOW (NTC 1987):
"As the Brigade Task Force's lead element (TF 1-70 AR ) approached its Objective (a
ridge line) it came under fire from one of three defending MRC's (motorized rifle
companies) defending this position. A-Co, 1-70 AR halted to determine the
direction and location of this fire halting the remaining Bn TF elements to its
rear. Unaware of the exact reason for this halt the TF 1-70 AR Commander endeavored
to contact A-Co. for additional information. Failing to raise A-Co, the TF Cdr
directed D-Co, 1-70 AR & B-Co, 1-61 IN to pass to the right of A-Co and continue the
move on to the Objective. As D & B Cos passed to the right of A-Co 1-70, they too
came under a considerable volume of fire from another MRC. The fighting soon
degenerated into a series of independent actions that quickly rendered TF 1-70 AR
combat ineffective".

Summary from the NTC AAR & Lesson Learned: Surprised by the initial enemy fire after
making contact, TF 1-70 AR was unable to synchronize its movement and mass fires to
effectively overcome this obstacle, as casualties mounted, TF 1-70 AR lost cohesion,
was defeated and withdrew.

> BJ: For modern actions with current equipment, of course! If they are studying
> Napoleonic warfare, and have unearthed new hard data, and are testing
> Charleville muskets-I'm sure taxpayers would question their activities!
>
> I look forward to the NTC asking for re-enactment groups to volunteer to use
> live ammo in order to test the data!
>
> BJ

It worries me that you are always so eager to dismiss possible sources of valuable
information (sight unseen) that can help shed light on History's dim past. But,
even you should be able to 'read between the lines' and deduce some of the
similarities present here.

Another obvious connection that may have escape your eagle eye, is that the maneuver
training that takes place at the NTC, like the training that took place in the
Grande Armee's Camps (along the French coast in 1803-5), was the common element that
forged two great fighting machines, that lead to Decisive victory in both Desert
Storm and the Austerlitz Campaign. But I'm sure some will be able to write a novel
about this sooner or later so don't worry too much about what you've missed. Bob,
remember your great sense of humor now! ;^)

Fact is stranger than fiction. But, fiction is quicker, because it's easier to make.

Regards,...James

[Quid Veritas]

Your point is well taken as far as it goes.

It has been my recent experience that there is increasing
dissatisfaction with "Empire" style games. They lack the ability to do
much more than provide a vehicle for one force to grind on another.
Indeed, many of our games between "experienced" games look a lot like
WWI -- its impossible to gain an advantage due to the helicopter
intelligence.

For better or worse, we have been slipping to a card driven system --
probably not that different from Piquet. The problem we have with the
cards is the lack of action across the board in large games. We are now
experimenting with a deck for each individual.

Is Piquet the last word for historical gamers? Nope.

Is Piquet and concepts it represents anathema to the historical gamer?
Probably not. They deserve our attention and I strongly suspect this
sort of thing will be a component of the majority of future rules sets.

-- Just my two cents.

mjc

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <382F072A...@worldnet.att.net>, Brick says...

>
>Bob,
>
>Are you starting to lose your renown sense of humor? ;^)

BJ: My renowned sense of humor will maintain as long as you keep serving up big
fat softballs to hit out of the park!

>
>Since, too many of our discussion seem to degenerate into the same old 'circular
>arguments', with the 'usual suspects' involved. I thought it would be more
>interesting to just cut to the chase and see what kind of person plays PK? To
>answer that question you need to know what the PK Demographics are.
>
>I've visited your web sites (even left you a message) and haven't found to many
>answers other than a clue in the form of the PK Book list. Which is currently
>made
>up of mostly novels. Which suggest that 'historical image' not necessarily the
>historical information, is important to the group. Then again your right!, I
>don't
>understand 'recreational wargaming' or the people that play them. But, If I'm
>ever
>going to steal these people away from you, I will need to know what makes them
>tick
>and why they play.

BJ: Join the PKMailer on Onelist and ask them yourself, or you might try the
Heretics in London, or the Aussies on Steve Findley's site. All addresses are
found on the www.piquet.org site, along with much additional info. The web site
www.piquet.com is primarily a sales site(that is nearing 17,000 hits!)

>
>I've been looking into determining a Chaos/FOW/Friction factor for my
>'unpublished
>game design'. I've been using the NTC Lesson Learned that 'DAW' mentioned to
>you
>almost exclusively.

<<snip of much extraneous matter>>

>>
>> I look forward to the NTC asking for re-enactment groups to volunteer to use
>> live ammo in order to test the data!
>>
>> BJ
>
>It worries me that you are always so eager to dismiss possible sources of
>valuable
>information (sight unseen) that can help shed light on History's dim past. But,
>even you should be able to 'read between the lines' and deduce some of the
>similarities present here.

BJ: I would be the first to admit that there are many common themes throughout
the history of warfare-one couldn't write and develop a multi-period ruleset, if
this weren't true.

I would,however, doubt that hard data of the type the NTC would recognize, as
opposed to themes, is to be plentifully found in the histories; particularly of
the earlier periods. Much always becomes creative interpretation.

As to direct parallels, again one sees what one wishes to see-which is why there
is such a great variety of rule sets, each strongly supported by its' advocates.

As to rejecting something "sight unseen" that has happened with great regularity
to Piquet-I cannot comment on any data or ideas you may offer as I don't believe
it has been published in a public forum for review-just oblique and incomplete
statements on this and other forums.

>
>Another obvious connection that may have escape your eagle eye, is that the
>maneuver
>training that takes place at the NTC, like the training that took place in the
>Grande Armee's Camps (along the French coast in 1803-5), was the common element
>that
>forged two great fighting machines, that lead to Decisive victory in both Desert
>Storm and the Austerlitz Campaign. But I'm sure some will be able to write a
>novel
>about this sooner or later so don't worry too much about what you've missed.
>Bob,
>remember your great sense of humor now! ;^)

BJ: Major, I read both fiction and non-fiction and find it ALL informative,
although in different ways. As to training being a good thing...well, it seems
a tad obvious, and hardly a devastating insight, but, sure, I'm sure we could
agree on that.

>Fact is stranger than fiction. But, fiction is quicker, because it's easier to
>make.

BJ: Major, you couldn't be more wrong in a general sense. Writing a sensible
history is FAR easier than a well written novel or poem as proved by the fact
that so many people write Napoleonic histories as compared to either historical
novels, or poetry in general!

Fiction is damn hard, because it must say something meaningful both
intellectually and emotionally-history, particularly badly written histories,
merely, at a minimum, need to get the dates right and offer up truisms arranged
in a structured fashion The number of histories written with any original and
creative insights, particularly in the Napoleonic period, are few.

In any case, all recreational wargame rules are fiction by definition, as they
serve solely as entertainments, and offer no other constructive purpose other
than a mildly instructive one that texts probably handle better and more
directly.

Some are just bad games, while others are actually fun to play. Some are
believed to be more accurate 'history' than others by one group or another, just
as some people prefer one book or movie to another. The customers who buy the
tickets will determine which is a good investment in money or time, not you or
I.

BJ

[rjo...@rmi.net]

My experience is that a room with tables, dice, and/or cards, is for
entertainment, and that being unsmilingly 'serious' while moving little toy
soldiers over foam hills and into lichen forests is an act of creative
imagination, not scientific endeavor.

Some rules are just bad games, while others are actually fun to play. Some are

[Matt DLM]

<<BJ: Well, Jay, I'm pretty proud of Piquet and feel very confident about the
design and math, but I would be the first to agree that each gamer must make
his
own determination of what works for him. I do think that some popular games
have some pretty suspect math premises, and substantial misunderstandings of
chance, randomness, odds, and probability-slathered over by layers of tables,
charts, and elaborate process, but if it floats your boat so be it.>>

Forgive me Bob, but you can't/won't even give ballpark figures to basic
questions about movement rates - much less more complex situations - so where
does this confidence in PK's math come from?

How do you know that your math is so much better than most - especially when
you say that 99% of the facts are presented the same? I am at a loss to see how
math was even used in the basic PK design - it seems that most of PK's
mathematical analysis was done after the fact (otherwise you would be able to
explain some of the basic probabilities very readily).

BJ <<A case may be made that new game mechanics, innovative design approaches

can and do come along-but the bones of Napoleonic history have been picked over
for
nearly 200 years and the chances of finding some undiscovered piece of meat,
not
as yet gnawed clean, is very, very slight.>>

Honestly, BJ, you couldn't be more wrong and off-base.
Take a look at the significant or iconoclastic Napoleonic works published since
1970, including Paddy Griffith's ideas on British bayonet charges, Peter
Hofschroer's latest Wellington controversy, Elting's Swords Around a Throne,
Jean Lochet's work in the old EE&L, Scott Bowden's Austerlitz, Duffy's Suvarov,
Paul Austin Britten's 1812 trilogy, Brent Nosworthy's Battle Tactics, Lynn's
Bayonet of the Republic, Weider's work on the poisoning, and on and on.
That, plus scores of new translations ( and some incredible stuff we are just
finding).

<<BJ: I have consistently supported a hobby-wide study of the demos of
wargaming.>>

Yes, you have, to your credit.

Matt DeLaMater

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <19991115183519...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, mat...@aol.com
says...
>
><,snip>>

>
>
>Forgive me Bob, but you can't/won't even give ballpark figures to basic
>questions about movement rates - much less more complex situations - so where
>does this confidence in PK's math come from?
>

BJ: Matt, you HAVE been given answers-just not the ones that you either want, or
choose to understand.
I am reminded of Dorothy Parker's famous line, when asked to use the word
horticulture in a sentence, that "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't
make her think."

>How do you know that your math is so much better than most - especially when
>you say that 99% of the facts are presented the same?

BJ: Uh, Matt-one can have the same facts, more or less, but use them and apply
math to them in many diverse ways-including the use of incorrect math
premises-particularly in the area of probability.

One can hope that a ruleset uses math in an internally consistent way, and that
the designer's understanding of probability is reasonably informed. The truth
is many rule designers are either History Majors with the slimmest of math
skills, or, more rarely, Engineering Majors with decidedly 'mechanistic'
appreciations of events, or even more perniciously, CPAs that just want
everything to add up at the bottom of the column of figures.

The best outcome is a balanced approach with a sensitivity to the illogical
human factor and life's and battle's absurdities, and some hope that the math is
at least adequate-regrettably, that is too often not the case.

>I am at a loss to see how
>math was even used in the basic PK design - it seems that most of PK's
>mathematical analysis was done after the fact (otherwise you would be able to
>explain some of the basic probabilities very readily).

BJ: The use of math in Piquet, including the mix of the probability of
cards(limiting opportunity) with dice(a typical randomizer) was DESIGNED to
limit and obscure the ability of commanders to know precisely, prior to combat
occuring, what the exact odds were! This is unlike some games where the range
of outcomes is very carefully delineated and obvious. As to the 'odds' within
the sub-set of occurences; one can state the odds of a roll, the odds of an
event, and even the odds of an event coupled with the range of of outcomes, but
any given event's outcome is almost impossible to pre-calculate with any
certainty.

Sorry for the subtlety.

With the high degree of interelation between all factors in Piquet, and its
distillation into a very few tables-do you honestly think that can be achieved
without planning, mathematical design, and forethought? That one can justify
all of these connections, which work in a concerted fashion, after the fact?
Really???

>
>BJ <<A case may be made that new game mechanics, innovative design approaches

>can and do come along-but the bones of Napoleonic history have been picked over
>for
>nearly 200 years and the chances of finding some undiscovered piece of meat,
>not
>as yet gnawed clean, is very, very slight.>>
>

>Honestly, BJ, you couldn't be more wrong and off-base.
>Take a look at the significant or iconoclastic Napoleonic works published since
>1970, including Paddy Griffith's ideas on British bayonet charges, Peter
>Hofschroer's latest Wellington controversy, Elting's Swords Around a Throne,
>Jean Lochet's work in the old EE&L, Scott Bowden's Austerlitz, Duffy's Suvarov,
>Paul Austin Britten's 1812 trilogy, Brent Nosworthy's Battle Tactics, Lynn's
>Bayonet of the Republic, Weider's work on the poisoning, and on and on.
>That, plus scores of new translations ( and some incredible stuff we are just
>finding).

BJ: Oh, Matt! Of course, new historical interpretations and, rarely, new
historical evidence, is uncovered, though I doubt that a wargame can make much
use of a 'Poisoning Napoleon Table', Wellington's 'Perfidity and Manipulation
Factor', or Lynn's excellent study of formations used in the Revolutionary Wars
other than in the most general way. Griffith's works are always the source of
many new ideas-but that is history, and as a historical inquiry may inform a
designer, but that is not quantifiable data, and will only appear in a
recreational wargame as an interpretation, a viewpoint, and a different 'slant'
to the creative 'fictional' premises of the wargame.

Historical Wargames are NOT history, but, at best, historical counter-factuals,
'fictions', and amusing quasi-studies and reflections on a wide range of
possible battlefield effects-all heavily weighted by subjective judgements.

NO historian would change his opinion of Napoleon's generalship, or Wellington's
tactical insight based on the outcome of a wargame! No Napoleonic wargame
outcome will ever be cited as a footnote to a serious historian's doctoral
thesis!

At bottom, a new historical interpretation may provide a different 'twist' to
the wargame's plot, but nothing more. Art and wargame 'reality' are in the mind
of the beholder and have no implications beyond an evening's laughter, some good
natured ribbing, and the satisfaction of a good beer and a very bloodless
'victory' while 'playing' with history.

BJ

[Jay]

rjo...@rmi.net wrote:

>BJ: For modern actions with current equipment, of course! If they are studying
>Napoleonic warfare, and have unearthed new hard data, and are testing
>Charleville muskets-I'm sure taxpayers would question their activities!

Some of NTC's data is certainly applicable to WWII though.

[Jay]

rjo...@rmi.net wrote:

>In article <382ce7ca...@news.igs.net>, mjma...@suicideking.igs.net

>>That's a bit condecending don't you think?

>
>BJ: Those are the Major's words, not mine.

I know, that's why I left the attribution in. I thought his comments
were condescending.

>>Of course PK is the shining exception to all of the above. Pardon if I
>>don't buy it yet.
>
>BJ: Well, Jay, I'm pretty proud of Piquet and feel very confident about the
>design and math, but I would be the first to agree that each gamer must make his
>own determination of what works for him. I do think that some popular games
>have some pretty suspect math premises, and substantial misunderstandings of
>chance, randomness, odds, and probability-slathered over by layers of tables,
>charts, and elaborate process, but if it floats your boat so be it.

Note the "yet" at the end of my comment. My problem is somewhat
related to your basic point: I've dropped hundreds of dollars on rules
that collect dust for one reason or another. As a result I'm somewhat
more discerning in my purchases. PK is not that common here, and since
you seem to retail it selectively, it's not in our local store.

In any case, I played my second game of PK (Din of Battle) on Sunday.
I enjoyed it, and I won (does that make me a military genius? I've won
every PK game I've played).

>BJ: I presume you mean WWII? And, yes, I agree that the "Tank and Clanks" crowd
>with their guns vrs. millimeters of armor are about as lost in unprovable
>fantasy as any Napoleonic time/motion study.

That wasn't my finest typing job. Yes, I meant WWII. I think, perhaps,
that WWII has the opposite problem of earlier periods: too much
information available. Of course most penetration values are proving
ground, which has little bearing on battlefield reality, but it is a
better baseline to start from than much of the supposition about
Napoleonic firepower.

>BJ: Jay, in all deference to the Major, I hardly think that anyone in
>Napoleonic Wargaming for more than a few years is a naif when it comes to the
>subject matter. I am amused that each decade a group of wargame/historians
>come along that think they have found some devastating breakthrough fact that
>has been totally overlooked by their predecessors. They see themselves as the
>possessors of some Rossetta Stone of Historical data.
>
>A case may be made that new game mechanics, innovative design approaches can and
>do come along-but the bones of Napoleonic history have been picked over for
>nearly 200 years and the chances of finding some undiscovered piece of meat, not
>as yet gnawed clean, is very, very slight.
>
>That the nature of the bones may be argued over(to no fixed conclusion) is
>inescapable and has made Napoleonics a small industry. What would Greenhill do
>without yet another 'in depth' study!!!

I guess that most periods could have the same point made about them.
Certainly the American Civil War has been well chewed, yet there is
still some interesting stuff to be had. Sometimes an attempt to look
at the history from a different angle succeeds.

>>PK is a broad set of rules. One could, sight unseen, argue
>>convincingly that it's the "Swiss Army Knife" of rules sets: able to
>>do anything, but unable to do it well.
>
>BJ: Well... obviously, some people think it does quite well. Piquet is not
>really any more broad in its given periods than most of its competitors just
>less baroque. I would also say that for the average man, the Swiss Army Knife
>is more useful at any number of tasks than the heavy, two handed sword with 5
>foot blade that some rule sets would represent.

Of course. Every rules set has advocates and detractors. I guess the
concerns I have, as well as fellow club members, are based on how a
"generic" set of rules pass the test of dealing with the three main
periods of warfare: melee, musket and machinegun.

>>Social issues? You wouldn't be a "social historian" would you? That
>>would be dissapointing. What with such important topics as womens'
>>issues in the Wars of the Roses and all.
>
>BJ: No war or battle has existed in history in a vacuum. The social and
>political influences on the battlefield are immense. Many a wargamer places his
>view of battles solely on a gun/armor, drill per minute basis and never thinks
>about, or considers, wider issues of the period. Nor do some wargamers try to
>analyse the actions and outcomes in terms of the social and political contexts
>they exist within.

I was using your comment as a vehicle for a backhanded slap at what
passes for history in many schools these days. In fact I take an
interest in the social context as it bears on the battlefield. Modern
people often seem unable to fathom why Napoleonic troops would stand
still under devastating artillery fire without rebelling. Sometimes
that modern thinking gets reflected in rules.

>My decidedly unscientific opinion is that it's a very smart group,
>knowledgeable, and insightful-certainly nothing has been said to lead me to
>believe that they are less informed than any "Dedicated Napoleonic
>Wargamer(Historical)" about their understandings of Napoleonic History.

Point taken.

BTW, the jury is still out here on PK. The only definitive conclusion
we could make from our battle yesterday was that it's a system than
must be played many times before passing judgement. I did notice that
the "impetus" tended to swing to one player or the other for several
impulses (I hope I have the term correct: "impulse" being the events
taken by one player expending his earned impetus), and that
multi-player will require some imagination (I'm not sure I like the
solution presented in the rules, I'd be more inclined to appoint a
CinC to roll the dice and allocate impetus for each side).

I was happy to finally play it as intended though, and I may yet be
convinced to buy a set.

[Dallas Gavan]

G'day, BJ.

I think Matt is questioning your post in the same manner I did when I
read it- not in relation to games but in the context that, after 200
years of study, there's very little new left to be found. Yet what has
been found recently (and may yet be found) will definitely influence the
way some people do games. With the opening up of foreign-language
sources there's been a great increase in the knowledge-base that wasn't
previously available to the (mainly) mono-lingual English-speaking
gaming fraternity. There's also the original new works by many authors
mentioned above adding to the level of understanding and pool of
knowledge (even if the knowledge is just to avoid a particular author).

This information ranges from uniforms to tactics to politics to memoires
to individual combat techniques, etc, and is eventually going to find
its way into games one way or another. Simple things, such as the
Polish and other eastern European lancers thrusting across their mount's
necks at the left of an opponent, rather than at his sword-arm side, may
help explain why one nation's troops were more effective than another's.
I agree with Matt- there's lots out there to be found, particularly
with the more available non-English language sources. And this info
will be used by game designers in some way- even if it's just the
uniforms on the figures illustrating their rules.

As for wargaming ever influencing history I think you're probably right
as far as our hobby goes but have misunderstood completely Matt's point.
But let's not forget those times when military TEWTS have influenced
history- Pearl Harbour being a case in point.

Dal.
--
http://www.historyserver.org/spanners.toolbox/index.shtml

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <80r488$hrh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dallas says...
>
>G'day, BJ.
<,snip of previous notes>>

>
>I think Matt is questioning your post in the same manner I did when I
>read it- not in relation to games but in the context that, after 200
>years of study, there's very little new left to be found. Yet what has
>been found recently (and may yet be found) will definitely influence the
>way some people do games. With the opening up of foreign-language
>sources there's been a great increase in the knowledge-base that wasn't
>previously available to the (mainly) mono-lingual English-speaking
>gaming fraternity. There's also the original new works by many authors
>mentioned above adding to the level of understanding and pool of
>knowledge (even if the knowledge is just to avoid a particular author).

BJ: When I used to run marathons and distance races, I used to train quite
extensively. As any coach will tell you 75% of your conditioning comes from the
first 10 miles of training-20% from the next 20 and 5% from the next 40 miles.

So it is with historical knowledge-your first book, let's say Chandler, gives
you 75% of all that you'll ever learn of Napoleonic warfare, the next five books
another 20 % and the next hundred books the another 5%. I would say the chances
of a factoid that would change your entire perception of Napoleonic Warfare is
quite slight-maybe a little tweak here or there. On occasion a very convincing
contrarian viewpoint will come along that will change your views substantially,
but this is usually more likely to occur on the strategic, political, or social
level, and not on the level of minor military tactics, or even grand tactics.

Quite frankly, the range of tactical possibilities, given the fact that the
technology and training of the period was amazingly similar between all the
armies, particularly after 1807, was very narrow, and leadership, regimental
experience, and dumb luck was probably more decisive than any other factor.
This one of the reasons the period is a very balanced one for wargaming.

>
>This information ranges from uniforms to tactics to politics to memoires
>to individual combat techniques, etc, and is eventually going to find
>its way into games one way or another. Simple things, such as the
>Polish and other eastern European lancers thrusting across their mount's
>necks at the left of an opponent, rather than at his sword-arm side, may
>help explain why one nation's troops were more effective than another's.

BJ: This is the sort of information that I consider so very minor that to
include it other than in some general way- a small advantage in quality roll,
for instance-would exagerrate its' effect greatly, and at the very least
including too many such minor considerations will junk up a rule set to the
point that it plays poorly. Enter the 12 hour game!

> I agree with Matt- there's lots out there to be found, particularly
>with the more available non-English language sources. And this info
>will be used by game designers in some way- even if it's just the
>uniforms on the figures illustrating their rules.

BJ: As I said Napoleonic history is a small industry, and Matt, as editor of
that fine Napoleon Magazine, has a vested interest in keeping the factoid
factory popping out this month's curious minor point. Even there. most articles
are simple retellings in digest form of a given battle, often based on common
narrative histories.

There is always something new to discover, if only the flavor of the jam
Napoleon slathered on his croissant on the morning of Austerlitz-it's just that
it generally won't be earth shaking, and will have little or no relevance to
wargame rules.

Note that I exclude those few gamers and rule writers who do little or no
homework, and have decidedly curious ideas about a given period-they might
benefit greatly by reading anything-anything at all-about a period.

>
>As for wargaming ever influencing history I think you're probably right
>as far as our hobby goes but have misunderstood completely Matt's point.
> But let's not forget those times when military TEWTS have influenced
>history- Pearl Harbour being a case in point.

BJ: The only story about Pearl Harbor I remember is that a pre-war wargame(which
predicted the loss of the carriers-not the battleships) foretold a disaster, but
the results were changed by a judge that said that that outcome was impossible.
Even the military had, until recently, little belief in the 'reality' of these
games other than as an amusing training tool.

I'm not sure they have, even with computers and plentiful data, and given a far
more technological battlefield, achieved much trust in the military to this day!

BJ

[Matt DLM]

<<Every wargame on the market asks the gamer to make a leap of faith, to
exercise a 'suspension of disbelief' as is found in the theater, and to
imaginatively use the rules to create in his mind the illusion of period combat
using toy soldiers. And, just as in theater, art, novels, or film different
people need different creative works to create, for them, this imaginative
'special place'.>>

Bob I couldn't agree with you more that the art of the design is critically
important.

However, granting everything you say here as true - and I do - does not somehow
exempt a design from being examined in terms of historical accuracy.

Now, some gamers may have accepted your argument that there is no significant
difference in historical accuracy between designs. Of course, I disagree and
believe that such differences can be argued and reasonably shown to exist.

<<The people that play LoG or Piquet do it because they enjoy it-not because
the
WEIGHT OF HISTORICAL FACT forces them one way or the other.>>

I am not so sure that LoG players would agree!

Matt DeLaMater

[Brick]

Matt,

I've uncovered something terrible! I think Bob (by definition) may be posting to
the wrong News Group and may even be liable in a lawsuit too.

The word "Historical" as defined by Webster's dictionary means, "based on history
or on documented material from the past". It goes on to say "Of, pertaining to,
the nature of history, as opposed to legend or fiction".

Coincidentally enough, the word "Legend" from the definition above seems to be a
good match to Bob's own description of PK, "A non historical or unverifiable story
handed down by tradition from earlier times (such as from March 1996) and popularly
accepted as historical"

Compare this to the man's own documented statement below.

<<Every wargame on the market asks the gamer to make a leap of faith, to
exercise a 'suspension of disbelief' as is found in the theater, and to
imaginatively use the rules to create in his mind the illusion of period combat
using toy soldiers. And, just as in theater, art, novels, or film different
people need different creative works to create, for them, this imaginative

'special place'.>>BJ

This looks like a pretty close match to me. Which is why I'm concerned.

Matt, I never realized this before but suspect you must have known this for quite
some time. Let me be the first to commend you for personally taking the time over
the last several months to help Bob find at least something he could document
'historically' about PK. I think very few people have recognized your motives or
would have been willing themselves to indulge in such a selfless act of kindness to
a fellow Game Designer.

Bob, Now that this is in the open, I want to help too!

This NG would never be the same if you had to leave on such a minor infraction like
this one appears to be. There must be something that is historical about PK, come
on help us think. However, while we're thinking, you should probably stay away
from using the term 'Historical' in connection with PK, until we can find a
solution for you. It could be construed as false advertising. Remember, you have
a corporate image to think of now. And we don't want to see you getting mixed up
in some petty law suit or having to tangle with the Better Business Bureau do we?
Of course not!

Just let me handle this one for you, O.K!?.

Fellow Historical Miniature Wargamers!, Join with me in the first ever wargame,
"HISTORIC AIDE" to help Bob Jones find at least something 'Historical' that he can
document about PK! Let's not fail him now, we can beat this thing if we all pull
together as a team. ;^)

Just complete this sentence in 50 words or less;

"PK is a historically documented wargame because,......"

Let's do it!!!

James

[COL Bill Gray]

God, now this is cold (funny, but cold:).

Bill Gray

Brick <Jdma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3831F6F0...@worldnet.att.net...

> Matt,
>
> I've uncovered something terrible! I think Bob (by definition) may be
posting to
> the wrong News Group and may even be liable in a lawsuit too.
>
> The word "Historical" as defined by Webster's dictionary means, "based on
history
> or on documented material from the past". It goes on to say "Of,
pertaining to,
> the nature of history, as opposed to legend or fiction".
>
> Coincidentally enough, the word "Legend" from the definition above seems
to be a
> good match to Bob's own description of PK, "A non historical or
unverifiable story
> handed down by tradition from earlier times (such as from March 1996) and
popularly
> accepted as historical"
>
> Compare this to the man's own documented statement below.
>

> <<Every wargame on the market asks the gamer to make a leap of faith, to
> exercise a 'suspension of disbelief' as is found in the theater, and to
> imaginatively use the rules to create in his mind the illusion of period
combat
> using toy soldiers. And, just as in theater, art, novels, or film
different
> people need different creative works to create, for them, this imaginative

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <3831F6F0...@worldnet.att.net>, Brick says...

>"PK is a historically documented wargame because,......"
>
>Let's do it!!!
>
>James

Major,

I'll raise your task one notch-find any one factor of even modest signifigance
in comparative weaponry, formations, movement, maneuver, leadership values,
tactical situation modifiers, army quality ratings, unit type, morale values, or
anything else you can name, that Empire, VtW, LoG, NB, or POW cover, that is not
also found in Piquet-Les Grognards.

Not that they will agree-all will be different values(oddly enough for those who
profess historical objective 'truth' in wargames) but you will find all of the
above rules cover these subjects, including Piquet.

Piquet does handle these factors differently and requires some creative
abilities that some of the more restrictive rules do not, but it is all there,
Major, all there.

I would have included VD in this list, but, alas, one can only speculate as to
what this 'legendary' rule set may contain. :-)

BJ

PS-If you have any hope of completing your rules prior to Cold Wars, you'd
better spend more time on them than ragging on Piquet.

PS PS- Please feel free to use the extensive bibliographies found in Piquet
Master Rules and in all of the supplements to speed your work.

FYI Piquet will be releasing "Barrage" WWI rules, "Hallowed Ground: Warfare in
the 19th Century" rules for 1820-1914, "Anchor of Faith" ECW rules, and a new
Franco-Prussian scenario book at Cold Wars-I've always believed that you must
walk the walk, if you're going to talk the talk-I can only hope that you will
also come to that conclusion.

[Dallas Gavan]

G'day, BJ.

I was thinking more of the Japanese game in which they decided they'd
disable at least 40% (? I think) of the US Pacific Fleet. As it was the
result was a big under-statement of what happened.

I agree that wargames won't influence technology but what they can, and
sometimes do, influence is the way that technology is implemented. The
technology's going to keep on changing but how it's used will be
practiced either on computer simulations or in exercises- the ultimate
"wargame". And real or imaginary lessons gained from these games will
be reflected on the battlefield. Otherwise the success of the US in the
Gulf may not of happened if they'd been relying purely on experience
from Viet Nam or Korea.

As for the new writings I agree the change they make in perspective
may be incremental (though some such as Hofschröer really ask us to
change our English-based perspectives) but remember it's the sum of the
increments that determines the amount of change. In our lifetime
there's been a lot of "revisionist" history written, much of which has
been discarded as either too controversial or too improbable. But the
old chestnut of the British and French being superior at all levels has
and is being questioned- with the result that the rest of Europe is no
longer classified as mere "bit players" by most of the hobby.

Much of this is as a result of the writings of Elting, Bowden, Nafziger
and others who abandoned the path of Oman and his ilk. Even Charles
Grant's claim that the "British were never defeated in battle by the
French", a long held truth for most English-speaking gamers, has been
disproven since the publication in his "Napoleonic Wargaming".

I know you wouldn't include such a point as the way a lance was used (no
pun intended) in your games, Bob. Nor am I suggesting you should. I
was just pointing out that such a fact may, and probably will, be
included by some rules at some time. Lot's of little points like this
contribute to the evolution of design. Some are major changes, such as
the inclusion of morale, while others are small and yet lead to a
re-examination of the mechanics of the period (the Poles were more
effective and they used their lance like that. So why did that make a
difference, if any?). Yet others die a deserved death along with the
rules (did I hear anyone mention "flinching" and WRG?).

Besides, our current opinions of the Napoleonic Wars are influenced by
our experience base and the historical view presented by our society.
In 50 years time these will have changed and were we to be alive then
we'll probably have changed our views (even if only due to
Altzheimer's). History is distorted by the window of your experience
and further reading, research or experience ("How the hell did someone
fight when riding one of these mongrel animals" for example) will change
the view.

Over to you, oh Argumentative One.

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <80tvpv$jfa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dallas says...
<<snip of much that I substantially agree with.>>

>
>I know you wouldn't include such a point as the way a lance was used (no
>pun intended) in your games, Bob. Nor am I suggesting you should. I
>was just pointing out that such a fact may, and probably will, be
>included by some rules at some time. Lot's of little points like this
>contribute to the evolution of design. Some are major changes, such as
>the inclusion of morale, while others are small and yet lead to a
>re-examination of the mechanics of the period (the Poles were more
>effective and they used their lance like that. So why did that make a
>difference, if any?). Yet others die a deserved death along with the
>rules (did I hear anyone mention "flinching" and WRG?).

BJ: No question that rules do evolve and that different aspects of battle may be
emphasized or de-emphasized in the process. All rules follow this pattern if
they get beyond a first edition and last more than a year(the majority don't).

>
>Besides, our current opinions of the Napoleonic Wars are influenced by
>our experience base and the historical view presented by our society.
>In 50 years time these will have changed and were we to be alive then
>we'll probably have changed our views (even if only due to
>Altzheimer's). History is distorted by the window of your experience
>and further reading, research or experience ("How the hell did someone
>fight when riding one of these mongrel animals" for example) will change
>the view.

BJ: No question that views may change-BUT what I take exception to is being
accused of Piquet not being based on history, readings, and good math, when the
people making that statement are essentially ignorant of the game, its tenets,
and methodology, and in some cases live in glass houses.

I also take exception that the history found in wargames need be expressed in a
certain narrow and traditional fashion, and that that history itself is
immutable, objective, and fixed.

The idea that LoG should be more widely accepted than Piquet because it is a
more historical game is nonsense. To say VtW is a more historical rule set is
equally absurd. Does it strike anyone who makes such statements that they are
describing their favorite rule set, which they enjoy playing and endowing it
with this greater "historical reality?"

Do they find it odd that many PK players on the mailer and at conventions laud
PK as being realistic, good history, and the game they prefer over all others
for its accurate portrayal of war? Given that these PK gamers are as bright,
well read, and analytical as a Log or VtW gamer (or maybe even more so) how can
these Piquet advocates be so deluded as to believe this?

Could it be that subjective judgments are being paraded as objective truths?

>Over to you, oh Argumentative One.

BJ: Dal, did you ever notice that I am generally responding to some
self-righteous fathead, who is calling down calumny on Piquet? Is one
argumentative because one responds to ill-informed attacks? Should one turn the
other cheek and let these statements stand unchallenged?

BJ

[Scott L. Karakas]

Dear "Brick,"

Although your rather sniggering "challenge" was directed at Bob Jones, since you did
address it to "Fellow Historical Miniature Wargamers," I would like to provide the
following:

PK is a historically documented wargame design because,... it combines extensive
period research with innovative design to create a wargame that provides historically
defensible results, while also confronting players with tactical choices similar to
those faced by historical military commanders.

There it is, in well under 50 words. Now that your "challenge" has been met, it seems
only fair that you, and others who denigrate the system "sight unseen," should face a
challenge of your own:

Using *specific* examples, describe *in detail* which portions of the my statement
above that you can *demonstrate* to be false, and *precisely* why. Be sure to back up
your statements with historically-documented citations from primary sources.

"Gentlemen," the ball is now in your court! Of course, you can always decide to
"chicken out" and ignore this counter-challenge, but that would make it pretty obvious
that you are unable or unwilling to back up your unfounded claims with any kind of
facts, wouldn't it?

Scott K.

*******************************************

Brick wrote:

> Fellow Historical Miniature Wargamers!, Join with me in the first ever wargame,
> "HISTORIC AIDE" to help Bob Jones find at least something 'Historical' that he can
> document about PK! Let's not fail him now, we can beat this thing if we all pull
> together as a team. ;^)
>
> Just complete this sentence in 50 words or less;
>

[Scott L. Karakas]

I'm reposting (and expanding on) my response to James' challenge, together with my
counter-challenge, hopefully in an error-free form this time.

James' "humorous" challenge:

Fellow Historical Miniature Wargamers!, Join with me in the first ever wargame,
"HISTORIC AIDE" to help Bob Jones find at least something 'Historical' that he can
document about PK! Let's not fail him now, we can beat this thing if we all pull
together as a team. ;^)

Just complete this sentence in 50 words or less;

"PK is a historically documented wargame because,......"

My response:

PK is a historically documented wargame design because,... it combines extensive
period research with innovative design to create a wargame that provides historically
defensible results, while also confronting players with tactical choices similar to
those faced by historical military commanders.

And my counter-challenge to James, Matt, and any other Piquet bashers out there:

Using *specific* examples, describe *in detail* the portions of my above statement

that you can *demonstrate* to be false, and *precisely* why. Be sure to back up your

arguments with historically documented citations from primary sources.

So come on, guys! I've responded to James' mocking "challenge," fulfilling all the
specific requirements that he laid out. (BTW, thanks for having so few!) Now, can
any of the "historical experts" respond to my counter-challenge?

Can you actually *apply* any of those historical facts you keep going on and on
about? Let's see some *specific* examples of what you see as Piquet's historical
"failings." No vague, generalized nonsense like, "Piquet is too random" or "Piquet
uses cards, and everyone knows that cards aren't historical" or "I looked at the web
site once, and it just seems too weird." Let's see some *specific* situations and
results from *actual* Napoleonic battles, backed up by *concrete* historical data,
along with a clear *demonstration* of why they can't be modeled using Piquet. If
there is any substance at all to your implication that Piquet is "unhistorical," then
it should be relatively simple for you to provide at least *one* specific example of
an historically implausible outcome produced while correctly using the Piquet rules,
should it not?

It has been repeatedly demanded by some on this list that Bob Jones provide everything
from detailed descriptions of Piquet's rules mechanics, design philosophy and
mathematical foundation, to lists of his customers and descriptions of Piquet's market
demographics. (What business owner in his right mind would share his customer
database with potential competitors?) It seems only fair that those who would make
such demands back up *their* claims by providing a few specifics of their own. Only
by so doing can they lay aside the obvious charge of hypocrisy, while at the same time
demonstrating their infinitely superior grasp of history (and of course their deep,
profound understanding of Piquet's rules and mechanics) by "showing us all how it's
done."

Or is a little consistency and specificity too much to ask from those who repeatedly
demand it of others?

Scott K.

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <19991117194404...@ng-ba1.aol.com>, mltry...@aol.com
says...
>

>Sorry but it is a game and one to which I was introduced by the designer
>himself. Unfortunately, it was a game in which the opposition won the
>initiative thirteen consecutive times.

Jerry, old bud, I can't recall ever having met you. I can't recall any game I
demoed at any convention (and I personally have run VERY few) that had the above
conditions occur (The odds of which are easily calculated to be less than
1/100th of a percent-highly unlikely).

When did I susposedly do this demo? When did this miraculaous run of odds
occur? Was this your only exposure to the game? Why would so many gamers enjoy
Piquet as they do if this were a common occurence?

BJ

[MltryHstrn]

Hi Guys:
Just want to share my impressions of this discussion. PK fans seem to be
alarmed that someone would criticize the system, the game, or the designer.

Sorry but it is a game and one to which I was introduced by the designer
himself. Unfortunately, it was a game in which the opposition won the

initiative thirteen consecutive times. It was not a pretty thing to see my
troops pounded apart with little we could do to maneuver or respond. I bought
the game - as did my best friend and a couple of other guys in Mike's basement
- and quite honestly have never played them again. My time is valuable and
spending it in that fashion was not something I care to repeat.Yes, I do like
being the all knowing general - opposed by other all knowing generals - where
my participation is less determined by the vagaries of the dice. Fortune ought
to play a part in the games we play but I prefer its role to be minimized in
the games I play. This is a matter of personal taste and preference and not an
attack on anyone's deeply held beliefs on the value of the PK system. I sense
that there others who share my opinion. The level of energy I've noted in this
exchange seems sufficient to light up Historicon at least.
Jerry Lannigan
BTW - I do prefer the style of EmpireIII, personally although recently I've
played a modified set of Fire and Fury for relaxation.

[Jay]

Dallas Gavan <dga...@interact.net.au> wrote:

> But the
>old chestnut of the British and French being superior at all levels has
>and is being questioned- with the result that the rest of Europe is no
>longer classified as mere "bit players" by most of the hobby.
>
>Much of this is as a result of the writings of Elting, Bowden, Nafziger
>and others who abandoned the path of Oman and his ilk.

Hmm, Bowden is a bit too much of a Francophile to be included in the
above, IMO. I was very disappointed with Armies on the Danube
(essentially "French superior at all levels," and Austrians
occasionally handed a backhanded compliment).

[Jay]

rjo...@rmi.net wrote:

>PS PS- Please feel free to use the extensive bibliographies found in Piquet
>Master Rules and in all of the supplements to speed your work.

17 works is "extensive?"

BTW, what value was Dupuy in your design? I've always found the
"predictions" part of it to be highly suspect.

[Dallas Gavan]

G'day, jay.

Mate, regardless of his faults (I too don't like his, to my mind,
pro-French approach) Bowden did make a lot of foreign sources
easily available to English-language readers for the first time. For
that alone he needs to be recognised for his contributions in my
opinion. It's true he could have been more balanced in his approach but
at least the Austrians, Prussians and others became more than a footnote
to a recital of French victories in his books. Even the deservedly
(IMHO) much-maligned Hamilton-Williams has been able to make people
question the traditional views of the Netherlands and Belgian troops in
the 100 Days, despite the way he seems to have manufactured evidence.
As well as justified criticism, we should give credit where credit is
due.

[Dallas Gavan]

G'day, BJ.

Mate, one man's history is another man's propaganda or fable. History
is a very personal thing and thus rarely do you get total agreement. My
point wasn't aimed at PK, just at your remark on history. I may have
misunderstood you- we seem to be pretty much in agreeance after all.

As for being argumentative, surely you don't deny it? Mate, it takes
one to know one and I can recognise you clearly. ;-)

[MltryHstrn]

Hi BJ:
The fact is that the game was run by onre of the gentlemen affiliated with PK.
He had driven downstate to put on a game at the home of Michael Vogell in Lake
Grove, NY and had brought a number of games to sell. The game was played with
25mm Napoleonics on a 24' long table. I admit that it might not have been
thirteen rolls in a row that was lost - how about twelve. My basic point is
that standing by a gaming table for four hours and losing every single
initiative roll soured me towards your system. Sorry but I believe two things
about games - they should be less dice dependent and no one who gives up their
gaming time should have that kind of experience where basically they stand
around and get trashed.
BTW this happened when your game was first brought out and had but two or three
of the period specific modules. And,sir, I freely admit that the game might not
have been run by you, personally, but by a corporate associate. I cna describe
him at this juncture as being in the six foot range with straight dark hair.
Time does have a way of reducing memory in such areas. However, I still do have
the game somewhere and I.m certain it still has soem of the dust from that
gaming evening in Mike's basement. BTW the fellow who ran the game put on
another game the following morning before he left to drive back to upstate NY.
The point is that you might be able to bash the specifics of my recollections
but not the impression that one game had on me.
Jerry

[Charles Partridge]

MltryHstrn <mltry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991118055236...@ng-cl1.aol.com...

> they should be less dice dependent and no one who gives up their
> gaming time should have that kind of experience where basically they stand
> around and get trashed.

That is generally how wars were won. One side usually got thrashed.
This seems pretty historical to me.

Shepard Partridge

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <19991118055236...@ng-cl1.aol.com>, mltry...@aol.com
says...

>
>Hi BJ:
>The fact is that the game was run by onre of the gentlemen affiliated with PK.
>He had driven downstate to put on a game at the home of Michael Vogell in Lake
>Grove, NY and had brought a number of games to sell. The game was played with
>25mm Napoleonics on a 24' long table. I admit that it might not have been
>thirteen rolls in a row that was lost - how about twelve. My basic point is
>that standing by a gaming table for four hours and losing every single
>initiative roll soured me towards your system.

BJ: Well, at least I'm not blanking out on the games I play and people I meet.
As for losing 12 in a row I can only say the math is still less than 2 one
hundreths of a percent of occurence-exceedingly rare. (the odds are calculated
by taking the per turn chance, which is 50%, and mulipling it by itself twelve
times).

Now, this doesn't mean that you didn't lose the majority of the impetus
available over those turns, but the experience of many gamers with Piquet is
that inexperience with the system on first using it can both leave people
unaware of the game mechanisms that ameliorate such runs, and allow them to
respond nevertheless, and the understanding that such runs are very, very rare
and may not be as "bad" as someone that is used to playing MCM would think.

Also, this had to be over 3 years ago and I'm not sure that Jeff, who was new to
the game at the time, would have had the familarity that he does now.

> and Sorry but I believe two things
>about games - they should be less dice dependent and no one who gives up their

>gaming time should have that kind of experience where basically they stand
>around and get trashed.

BJ: I think that you will find that Piquet is far less die dependent, when
played well, than many designs.

<<snip>>

>The point is that you might be able to bash the specifics of my recollections
>but not the impression that one game had on me.
>Jerry

BJ: You're quite right,Jerry, an impression is an impression, but not all first
impressions are accurate ones. I can only hope you try it again, and suggest
you try listening in on the mailer group which can be accessesd off the
www.piquet.org site. The discussions there might illustrate what impressions
others have formed of the game and why.

BJ

[Scott L Karakas]

Jerry,

A few observations:

1. Your story keeps changing. First it was the author of Piquet, then it
was a "rep." You can't seem to remember how many impetus rolls that you
lost, only that you are "sour" on the system. That's fair enough, faulty
memory or not, but:

2. Let's face it, you are claiming that you lost more than *ten* impetus
rolls in a row. The odds against that are astronomical. I'm not doubting
your veracity, but let's face it, if your roll *that* poorly, you are
going to get wiped out in *any* wargame you play, even Empire III. Would
you have discarded Empire III if during your first game you had been
"trashed" by rolling "1's" a dozen times in a row, or would you have
realized that you had made an incredibly unlikely series of horrible die
rolls, and tried it a second time?

Just curious.

Scott K.

**************************************

MltryHstrn <mltry...@aol.com> wrote:
: I admit that it might not have been thirteen rolls in a row that was

: lost - how about twelve. My basic point is that standing by a gaming
: table for four hours and losing every single initiative roll soured me

: towards your system. Sorry but I believe two things about games - they

[rjo...@rmi.net]

In article <3834a587....@news.igs.net>, mjma...@suicideking.igs.net
says...
>
<<snip>>
>
>While I'm not a die-hard "PK-basher," I'll take up that gauntlet for
>the sake of argument.
>
>"Extensive period research" is relative. PK's master rules have a
>bibliography comprising 17 works, all secondary sources. By contrast,
>From Valmy to Waterloo has a bibliography of nearly 40 works,
>including several primary ones (albeit reprints). Also, the
>bibliography for Clash of Arms' Command at Sea was so large that they
>didn't include it in the printed rules (it was available by e-mail).
>What constitues "extensive research?"

BJ: A good question, Jay, a very good question-the mere listing of titles is a
relatively easy task, and one that more than a few rules have done.

I would point out that the master rules are just that, master rules, and the
citations have a broader application than if they were dedicated to just the
Napoleonic Period.. The supplements provide more specific attribution. Les
grognards add 15 additional works, bringing the total to 32-not the 40 of VtW,
or the zero of NB, but a goodly number. The additional supplements for Archon,
BoB, Anchor of Faith, Hallowed Ground, Cartouche, Din of Battle, and the POA
series totals well over a hundred works.
<<snip>>
>"... with tactical choices similar to those faced by historical
>military commanders:" I have yet to see an history which mentions an
>historical commander being concerned about when a unit will reload,
>and basing decisions on that.

BJ: Jay, no Piquet player does base his decisions on that, since he cannot
directly control it.

>I also don't recall any mention of
>card-counting being an attribute of a successful general.

BJ: The systems inherent in Piquet generally defeat such tactics as card
counting. The better comparison is that the sequence in Piquet lacks the
perfect control and limitations of the MCM construct.

>The fact is
>the choices in PK have little real bearing on the tactical choices of
>the commander being depicted. That doesn't make them uninteresting, or
>less valid than the factor counting of other systems, but it's a sure
>sign of what was once called "the Rommel Syndrome" to claim that any
>system is representative of the real problems of an historical
>general.

BJ: No question that wargames are not war. But the range of decisions in Piquet
are far different, and more challenging than the decisions the typical rule set
provides. If one accepts that management of resources,variables, time, and
outrageous fortune are the task of command, then Piquet does a far better job
than the CPA School of Design.
>
>Now, here's what you should have said:
>
>PK is an historically documented wargame because, as with other
>wargames, it seeks to provide a representation of the panorama of the
>battles of history. To do that the designer(s) performed historical
>research and analized historical battles, tactics and weapons in order
>to be certain that the components of the game didn't cause a sense of
>unreality in the players.

BJ: Bingo! Jay-I couldn't agree more. You are one of the few that actually
thinks, reasons, and questions in an incisive way. I would add to the above, a
few words about enjoyment of the game! Maybe Canada does have more to offer
than Hockey and maple syrup! :-)

>
>Using *specific* examples, describe *in detail* the portions of my

>above statements that you can *demonstrate* to be false, and

>*precisely* why. Be sure to back up your arguments with historically
>documented citations from primary sources.
>

>Any possibility that my unabashed use of your above challenge causes
>some self-analysis?

BJ: Scott has been one of the earliest, and most informed of the Piquet/Archon
gamers and analysts. He, and others, on the mailer are constantly questioning,
tweaking, and discussing the game's premises. I know one thing, you and he
would find much to talk about and agree upon(and argue about!). I greatly
respect you both! Jay, are you going to Cold Wars? Scott?

BJ

>
>
>Jay
>"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at.
>And missed."
>W.S. Churchill

BJ: Yup!

[Jay]

"Charles Partridge" <cys...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>MltryHstrn <mltry...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19991118055236...@ng-cl1.aol.com...

>> they should be less dice dependent and no one who gives up their
>> gaming time should have that kind of experience where basically they stand
>> around and get trashed.
>
>

>That is generally how wars were won. One side usually got thrashed.
>This seems pretty historical to me.

But PK is supposed to be fun. That sort of history isn't all that
popular in wargaming (after all, if battles are usually one-sided, why
fight them?)

Jay
"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at.
And missed."
W.S. Churchill

[Jay]

"Scott L. Karakas" <slka...@uncg.edu> wrote:

>My response:
>
>PK is a historically documented wargame design because,... it combines extensive
>period research with innovative design to create a wargame that provides historically
>defensible results, while also confronting players with tactical choices similar to
>those faced by historical military commanders.
>
>And my counter-challenge to James, Matt, and any other Piquet bashers out there:
>

>Using *specific* examples, describe *in detail* the portions of my above statement

>that you can *demonstrate* to be false, and *precisely* why. Be sure to back up your
>arguments with historically documented citations from primary sources.

While I'm not a die-hard "PK-basher," I'll take up that gauntlet for
the sake of argument.

"Extensive period research" is relative. PK's master rules have a
bibliography comprising 17 works, all secondary sources. By contrast,
From Valmy to Waterloo has a bibliography of nearly 40 works,
including several primary ones (albeit reprints). Also, the
bibliography for Clash of Arms' Command at Sea was so large that they
didn't include it in the printed rules (it was available by e-mail).
What constitues "extensive research?"

"Innovative design:" I cannot disagree with that point. PK is one of
the most innovative designs I have seen, even if many of the elements
had been done before, they had not been done in that manner.

"Historically defensible results:" hmm, it seems to me that Napoleon's
Battles has "historically defensible results" as well, as does Shako.
Given my opinion of those two rules sets, I can't accept that claim as
relevant.

And last:

"... with tactical choices similar to those faced by historical
military commanders:" I have yet to see an history which mentions an
historical commander being concerned about when a unit will reload,

and basing decisions on that. I also don't recall any mention of
card-counting being an attribute of a successful general. The fact is

the choices in PK have little real bearing on the tactical choices of
the commander being depicted. That doesn't make them uninteresting, or
less valid than the factor counting of other systems, but it's a sure
sign of what was once called "the Rommel Syndrome" to claim that any
system is representative of the real problems of an historical
general.

Now, here's what you should have said:

PK is an historically documented wargame because, as with other
wargames, it seeks to provide a representation of the panorama of the
battles of history. To do that the designer(s) performed historical
research and analized historical battles, tactics and weapons in order
to be certain that the components of the game didn't cause a sense of
unreality in the players.

Using *specific* examples, describe *in detail* the portions of my

above statements that you can *demonstrate* to be false, and
*precisely* why. Be sure to back up your arguments with historically
documented citations from primary sources.

Any possibility that my unabashed use of your above challenge causes
some self-analysis?

[Steve H.]

"Extensive period research" ranks right up there next to the sign saying "Water Changed
Regularly" on the Polar Bear enclosure at the local Zoo - you wouldn't believe the colour
of that water!! :o))

Steve H.

Jay wrote:

> "Extensive period research" is relative. PK's master rules have a
> bibliography comprising 17 works, all secondary sources. By contrast,
> From Valmy to Waterloo has a bibliography of nearly 40 works,
> including several primary ones (albeit reprints). Also, the
> bibliography for Clash of Arms' Command at Sea was so large that they
> didn't include it in the printed rules (it was available by e-mail).
> What constitues "extensive research?"
>
>

..loads of snippage

>
> Jay

--

(spam proofing: remove the *'s in the id. above when replying by email)
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cave/5647/index.html

[Scott L Karakas]

Jay,

A few more thoughts on your thoughts, and then I'm done with this
discussion.

Jay <mjma...@suicideking.igs.net> wrote:

: While I'm not a die-hard "PK-basher," I'll take up that gauntlet for
: the sake of argument.

: "Extensive period research" is relative. PK's master rules have a

: bibliography comprising 17 works, all secondary sources. By contrast,
: From Valmy to Waterloo has a bibliography of nearly 40 works,
: including several primary ones (albeit reprints). Also, the
: bibliography for Clash of Arms' Command at Sea was so large that they
: didn't include it in the printed rules (it was available by e-mail).
: What constitues "extensive research?"

To BJ's response, I will simply agree that "extensive" is a relative term.
However, by counting only those sources found in the master rules, you
have (deliberately?) undercounted the sources for PK. For the Napoleonic
period, for example, you need to count the sources found both in the
Master Rules *and* in Les Grognards. That's why I delibewrately included
the word "period" in my statement. PK's biblio is as large as found in
most wargame rules (Can you think of many more than *two* with larger
bibliographies?), and larger than many of them (I can think of several
that have no bibliographies at all). For a miniatures ruleset, that sounds
pretty extensive to me.

And by the way, does a bibliography alone, even if it includes hundreds of
impressive titles, say *anything* about how well or how "historically" a
set of miniatures rules will play? If a rules writer analyzes, digests,
and synthesizes a large number of primary and secondary historical
sources, but does not include them in a bibliography, does that make his
design less "historical." Or to put it another way, if someone writes a
set of miniatures rules with no bibliography, then later publishes a
second edition *identical to the first* save that it now includes a
copious bibliography, is the second edition somehow "more historical" than
the first? Why?

Let me be clear: bibliographies are very useful for further research, and
to investigate the influences on a ruleswriter's design (at least, the
ones that he wants us to know about), but ultimately, a ruleset will
succeed or fail based on how well it *plays,* not on how many
authoritative names the author drops.

: "Innovative design:" I cannot disagree with that point. PK is one of :

the most innovative designs I have seen, even if many of the elements :
had been done before, they had not been done in that manner.

The acknowledgment is much appreciated, even if you just couldn't help
letting a little niggling creep in.

: "Historically defensible results:" hmm, it seems to me that Napoleon's

: Battles has "historically defensible results" as well, as does Shako.
: Given my opinion of those two rules sets, I can't accept that claim as
: relevant.

I've seen this claim made countless times by rules writers to trumpet the
"historical" aspects of their rules, and this includes WRG, VtW, and yes,
even Empire III! In fact, it is the *only* claim to historicity that I
have *ever* seen made for *any* set of miniatures rules. If it is
irrelevant for Piquet, it is equally irrelevant for *all* miniatures
rulesets, wouldn't you agree?

: And last:

: "... with tactical choices similar to those faced by historical
: military commanders:" I have yet to see an history which mentions an
: historical commander being concerned about when a unit will reload,
: and basing decisions on that. I also don't recall any mention of
: card-counting being an attribute of a successful general. The fact is
: the choices in PK have little real bearing on the tactical choices of
: the commander being depicted. That doesn't make them uninteresting, or
: less valid than the factor counting of other systems, but it's a sure
: sign of what was once called "the Rommel Syndrome" to claim that any
: system is representative of the real problems of an historical
: general.

Thanks for not stooping to ad hominem attacks! I agree that no historical
commander was "concerned about when a unit will reload." As BJ pointed
out, Piquet commanders make no decisions in that regard either! I also
agree that no historical commander ever counted cards (well, at least not
on the battlefield!), but I hope that you would also agree that no
historical commander ever rolled dice to determine the outcome of a melee,
or used a ruler to measure how far his troops moved, or consulted a table
to see whether one of his unit's musket volleys had caused any casualties,
either. Yet players of Empire III must constantly do all of these things!
Oh dear, does that mean that the choices in Empire III "have little real
bearing on the tactical choices of the commander being depicted"? How
embarrassing!

In fact, the criticisms you are leveling are equally applicable to *all*
miniatures wargames. Piquet does in fact require players to make choices
about how to best use their military resources in the face of unexpected
occurences, and the rules do in fact reward good planning and historical
tactics. These kinds of tactical decisions were also faced by historical
military commanders, were they not? Note that I am not claiming any
special uniqueness for Piquet in this regard - the "pluses" I mention, as
well as the "minuses" you cite, are common to most, if not all miniatures
rulesets. That's just the "nature of the beast." But Piquet certainly
should not be singled out as being "unhistorical" for these reasons,
unless you would agree that *all* miniatures rules are equally
"unhistorical."

And that brings me to one of the points I was attempting to make with my
"counter-challenge" post: simply that Piquet can claim *just as much*
historicity as any other set of wargaming rules, including those touted by
the folks who claim that Piquet is "unhistorical." I do not now, nor have
I ever, claimed that Piquet is "more historical" (whatever that may mean).
In fact, I think that it is pretty pointless to claim that *any* set of
miniatures rules is "more historical" than another, *unless* some truly
serious, *documentable* flaw can be found in the offending set.

: Now, here's what you should have said:

: PK is an historically documented wargame because, as with other :
wargames, it seeks to provide a representation of the panorama of the :
battles of history. To do that the designer(s) performed historical :
research and analized historical battles, tactics and weapons in order :
to be certain that the components of the game didn't cause a sense of :
unreality in the players.

Thanks a lot, but that is what *you* would say, and I would appreciate it
if you didn't presume to put words in my mouth. Having got that off my
chest, I must congratulate you, and would heartily agree with everything
you stated. Of course, you took 60 words to say it, and thus you would
have failed to meet the criteria of the silly initial "challenge," which
was to use "50 words or less"!

: Any possibility that my unabashed use of your above challenge causes :
some self-analysis?

Sorry, but I think that you rather missed the point of the whole exercise.
The initial "challenge" that I responded to was a smug, condescending
piece of tripe, and my primary goal in responding to it was to demonstrate
what an utterly fatuous bit of nonsense it actually was. Thank you very
much for helping me do exactly that!

Jay, in all sincerity, I wish you well and hope that you get great
enjoyment out of whichever rules you chose to game with. That *is* sort
of the whole point of wargaming, isn't it? :-)

Scott K.

"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Douglas Adams

[Scott L. Karakas]

BJ,

Thanks for the kind words! I won't be making it to Cold Wars (lots of work to do,
new house to move into, etc.), but I would be honored to meet you, Jay, and many
others who I currently know only as collections of words on r.g.m.h. and the PK
Mailer. Perhaps we can all share a bit of Glenfiddich... some day!!

Scott K.

[Jay]

rjo...@rmi.net wrote:

>BJ: A good question, Jay, a very good question-the mere listing of titles is a
>relatively easy task, and one that more than a few rules have done.

Padding a bibliography is not unheard of in any discipline.

>I would point out that the master rules are just that, master rules, and the
>citations have a broader application than if they were dedicated to just the
>Napoleonic Period.. The supplements provide more specific attribution. Les
>grognards add 15 additional works, bringing the total to 32-not the 40 of VtW,
>or the zero of NB, but a goodly number. The additional supplements for Archon,
>BoB, Anchor of Faith, Hallowed Ground, Cartouche, Din of Battle, and the POA
>series totals well over a hundred works.

I know. The Din of Battle supplement (the only one I have at hand)
lists something like 15-20 sources. However I must say that I did find
it odd that the Master PK rules has refs that were very 19thC oriented
(such as Hughs and Noseworthy).

>BJ: Jay, no Piquet player does base his decisions on that, since he cannot
>directly control it.

Perhaps, though I actually have some direct experience with the game
now, so you can't flummox me as before. I found that I was concerned
about which units could fire in a given impulse, and which units could
not. As a result my tactics were nore conservative (note that I didn't
allow the cards to dictate my tactics directly)

>>I also don't recall any mention of
>>card-counting being an attribute of a successful general.
>

>BJ: The systems inherent in Piquet generally defeat such tactics as card
>counting. The better comparison is that the sequence in Piquet lacks the
>perfect control and limitations of the MCM construct.

Card-counting became evident immediately. Even a player that isn't a
Vegas counter can count cards to some extent. If I see that my
opponent's reload cards have all been drawn I have a certain amount of
flexibility. The impetus system alleviates some of this effect, but it
isn't eliminated.

But then I may just not have enough experience with PK.

>BJ: No question that wargames are not war. But the range of decisions in Piquet
>are far different, and more challenging than the decisions the typical rule set
>provides. If one accepts that management of resources,variables, time, and
>outrageous fortune are the task of command, then Piquet does a far better job
>than the CPA School of Design.

By that you would be accusing the military of designing sims that are
not bearing on the reality of command. To be honest I haven't played
PK enough to say that the decision cycle is more challenging than any
other rules system. I can say that it is challenging though.

>BJ: Bingo! Jay-I couldn't agree more. You are one of the few that actually
>thinks, reasons, and questions in an incisive way.

Of course it helps when I don't slagg the master's work.

>I would add to the above, a
>few words about enjoyment of the game! Maybe Canada does have more to offer
>than Hockey and maple syrup! :-)

What more does one need??

> Jay, are you going to Cold Wars?

I'm afraid I'll be out of the wargame circuit for about 3 1/2 years,
though I may get an Historicon in at some point.

[Jay]

Scott L Karakas <slk...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>To BJ's response, I will simply agree that "extensive" is a relative term.
>However, by counting only those sources found in the master rules, you
>have (deliberately?) undercounted the sources for PK.

I deliberately only included the master rules sources as I thought
they reflected the bulk of the philosophy of PK.

> For the Napoleonic
>period, for example, you need to count the sources found both in the
>Master Rules *and* in Les Grognards. That's why I delibewrately included
>the word "period" in my statement. PK's biblio is as large as found in
>most wargame rules (Can you think of many more than *two* with larger
>bibliographies?), and larger than many of them (I can think of several
>that have no bibliographies at all). For a miniatures ruleset, that sounds
>pretty extensive to me.

I realize that many rules sets don't have any indication of what was
used as a source. In any case, my point was the use of the phrase
'extensivly researched' not a quibble about actual research.

>And by the way, does a bibliography alone, even if it includes hundreds of
>impressive titles, say *anything* about how well or how "historically" a
>set of miniatures rules will play?

Given that padding of bibliographies is not uncommon in the academic
world, I wouldn't be surprised if it occurred in the gaming world.
However, that was not, as stated above, the point.

>: "Innovative design:" I cannot disagree with that point. PK is one of :
>the most innovative designs I have seen, even if many of the elements :
>had been done before, they had not been done in that manner.
>
>The acknowledgment is much appreciated, even if you just couldn't help
>letting a little niggling creep in.

Bob tends to harp on the innovation aspects of wargames rules, and is
particularly derisive of "derivative" designs. I felt that it wasn't
out of place to point out that many elements of PK have come before
(I'm sure Bob will acknowledge that).

>: "Historically defensible results:" hmm, it seems to me that Napoleon's
>: Battles has "historically defensible results" as well, as does Shako.
>: Given my opinion of those two rules sets, I can't accept that claim as
>: relevant.
>
>I've seen this claim made countless times by rules writers to trumpet the
>"historical" aspects of their rules, and this includes WRG, VtW, and yes,
>even Empire III! In fact, it is the *only* claim to historicity that I
>have *ever* seen made for *any* set of miniatures rules. If it is
>irrelevant for Piquet, it is equally irrelevant for *all* miniatures
>rulesets, wouldn't you agree?

The irrelevance was my point. Your original statement was something
regarding "historical defensible results." If it is important to YOUR
point, it becomes important to mine.

>Thanks for not stooping to ad hominem attacks!

The "Rommel Syndrome" is something I've seen far to often. I'm not
about to apologize for its use.

> ... I hope that you would also agree that no

>historical commander ever rolled dice to determine the outcome of a melee,
>or used a ruler to measure how far his troops moved, or consulted a table
>to see whether one of his unit's musket volleys had caused any casualties,
>either. Yet players of Empire III must constantly do all of these things!
>Oh dear, does that mean that the choices in Empire III "have little real
>bearing on the tactical choices of the commander being depicted"? How
>embarrassing!

I'm not defending Empire (insert version here) or any other system. My
comments were a challenge to yours, regarding "historical decision
making." I don't think PK is any better or worse than other systems.
Your post indicated that you thought PK was "historical."

>In fact, the criticisms you are leveling are equally applicable to *all*
>miniatures wargames.

Absolutely, but not all wargames have advocates, such as yourself,
claiming "historical decision making."

>And that brings me to one of the points I was attempting to make with my
>"counter-challenge" post: simply that Piquet can claim *just as much*
>historicity as any other set of wargaming rules, including those touted by
>the folks who claim that Piquet is "unhistorical." I do not now, nor have
>I ever, claimed that Piquet is "more historical" (whatever that may mean).
>In fact, I think that it is pretty pointless to claim that *any* set of
>miniatures rules is "more historical" than another, *unless* some truly
>serious, *documentable* flaw can be found in the offending set.

I agree with you, however, your post was a PK-partisan effort that
left no clear indication of your opinion. One of the creepiest things
about PK is the evangelism. IMO PK evangelists should learn to present
PK for what it is, rather than attempt conversion by the sword.

>Thanks a lot, but that is what *you* would say, and I would appreciate it
>if you didn't presume to put words in my mouth. Having got that off my
>chest, I must congratulate you, and would heartily agree with everything
>you stated. Of course, you took 60 words to say it, and thus you would
>have failed to meet the criteria of the silly initial "challenge," which
>was to use "50 words or less"!

I could easily cut it to 50 words without losing the meaning. Your own
response to the challenge was somewhat verbose, no?

>Sorry, but I think that you rather missed the point of the whole exercise.
>The initial "challenge" that I responded to was a smug, condescending
>piece of tripe, and my primary goal in responding to it was to demonstrate
>what an utterly fatuous bit of nonsense it actually was. Thank you very
>much for helping me do exactly that!

Unfortunately your challenge did nothing to demonstrate the hollowness
of Jim's point. What it did was reinforce the opinion that PK gamers
are thin skinned and lacking in ability to argue logically. This is
not intended as a personaly attack, so please don't take it that way.
Rather than set PK up, your arguments sought to strike down
opposition.

[Scott L Karakas]

net>
Organization:

Jay,

I have no desire to get into yet another endless pissing match about
Piquet. Perhaps you've come to this whole "rip on the rules repeatedly,
then act outraged when someone fires back defending them" thing, but its
been going on for two years now. One gets tired of seeing one's favorite
rules slagged by people who clearly know next to nothing about them. The
incredibly arrogant, condescending tone of the post asking for folks to
"help find *one* historical thing about PK" was incredibly offensive, and
I made the mistake of responding in kind. I have no desire to compound
that lapse of good judgment by continuing an essentially useless and
unnecessary argument over whose member is bigger (ooops, I meant over
whose favorite rules are "more historical").

You see, over the weekend I remembered that the only important thing is
that *I* am satisfied with the historicity of the rules I play, and that
*I* enjoy playing them. The opinion of someone I've never met shouldn't
matter in the least, but I had lost sight of that fact. This latest
conversation helped bring that point home to me, and for that I am in
your debt.

Jay, I have no desire to "convert" people to Piquet, regardless of what
you may believe. I personally think that wargamers are intelligent enough
to be able to judge a ruleset on its own merits, if presented with
an *accurate* review of its features. At the same time, I give absolutely
no credence to the opinions of the small handful of wargamers who seem to
think that it is their mission in life to bolster their own favorite rules
by putting down others as somehow being "unhistorical."

So enjoy whatever rules you play, and I shall do the same. As to "whose
wargames are more historical," we shall simply have to "agree to
disagree," because my participation in this discussion is now officially
over. :-)

Good gaming to you!

Scott K.

[Matt DLM]

Scott<< I personally think that wargamers are intelligent enough to be able to

judge a ruleset on its own merits, if presented with
an *accurate* review of its features.>>

Couldn't agree more Scott. My whole point in trying to develop standards or
guidelines for historical accuracy is so that we may indeed have *accurate*
reviews - or at least better informed ones.

I have been amused by the high level of obfuscation that any attempt at
conversation on historical accuracy attracts from certain folks.

Scott <<At the same time, I give absolutely

no credence to the opinions of the small handful of wargamers who seem to
think that it is their mission in life to bolster their own favorite rules
by putting down others as somehow being "unhistorical.">>

Thankfully it is a small number, because we wouldn't want to give short shrift
to the many gamer/historians who are sincerely interested in issues of
historical accuracy as well as issues of playability/mechanics.

Scott, I find it troubling that your final word on the subject is that you have
decided that historical accuracy is absolutely subjective.

I am glad that you enjoy PK, and I am sorry that you feel under attack.
But I would suggest that any game which champions a low threshold of standards
for historical verisimilutude would always feel under attack in discussions on
realism (I am sure that Fire and Fury and Napoleon's Battles have come under
such attacks). However, PK is the first game I have seen that, in order to
defend its low threshold, has mounted an aggressive attack on historical
accuracy itself. And I think that attack has been good for all of us, because
it has all given us cause to reflect on our basic assumptions about the hobby.

Most of us in this discussion don't give a damn one way or the other about PK -
but we are interested in discussing the relationship between history and the
hobby. If the vocal Bob Jones is intersted in "pushing the envelop" in game
mechanics, others of us are interested in pushing the envelop in terms of
historical accuracy and combat modeling. Don't take it so personally - the
synergy that comes out of these arguments is probably good.

So, Scott, historical accuracy is totally subjective - Is that your final
answer?

Matt DeLaMater

[toysldr]

Matt –In your message of 22 Nov 99 responding to a message by Scott
Karakas of 21 Nov 99 you finished with "So, Scott, historical accuracy
is totally subjective - Is that your final answer?" On looking at
Scott’s message I fail to see any statement made by him that historical
accuracy is totally subjective. He did state that what was important to
him was that he was satisfied with the historicity of the rules and
that he enjoyed playing them. That seems a long way from what you
stated he said. Since one of the fundamentals of good historical
research is the accurate quoting and representation of primary sources,
one might have to call into question your accuracy of this bit of
historical research. Or is it just your opinion of what he said that
counts?

Jim

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

[Scott L. Karakas]