Piquet
DEREK HODGE
whats the prcice?
Derek Hodge (derek...@almac.co.uk)
* 1st 2.00 #5135 *
IMAC100
weeks. You can reach them at:
816-818 London Road
Leigh-on-sea
Southend SS9 3NH
phone: 01702-73986
- Jeff
TimGamer
>whats the prcice?
Good Luck! One o our members has been trying to get a copy to run an
event at a Historical Miniatures Convention sponsored by an HMGS chapter,
and he has been unable to do so! So much for th hype! It is smoke and
mirrors. I hope the game is better than the customer service! Tim
IMAC100
We do understand your frustration. The only people who have the game at
this point are the people who attended Cold Wars. This is because of a
printing error on the card decks.
I spoke with the printer today and the new cards will be in my hands on
Monday morning. On tuesday Morning everyone who has placed and order will
have their order shipped along with a free gift from us as a thank you for
your patience.
PIQUET was a complicated project to get off the ground because of the many
components included with the game. We certainly had our share of
production problems, but we are past that now I think.
Thanks again.
- Jeff
Matt DLM
The basic question I am asking is: "Are some rulesets more realistic
(historically accurate) than others." Then I would have hoped to move to a
discussion of what "realistic" means in theoretical and practical terms.
I'll admit that I'm a little amazed at the level of opposition to the
first premise.
Webster's defines realism as "precision in representing the details of
actual life." In the arts, realism implies an accretion of accurate detail
to convey and represent life. So, obviously, realism in wargaming suggests
a level of representation that would include accurate details. (Thus, by
definition, a grand-tactical game that represents battalions would be
taking a more realistic approach than one that only represents brigades --
providing, of course, that it has done so with "precision".)
You proposed a concept called "historically reasonable" which turns out to
be interchangeable with " my opinion."
You said, (in a moment of historical reasonableness, no doubt), that "I
don't give a whit about battalion level details, or the technical
capabilities of the various weapons systems. I realize these were
significant factors, but I don't care about them, and I don't want to
*have* to care about them when I'm playing a Napoleonic tabletop battle."
Okay, Chris, fine. What can I say to that stunning statement, because it
really says it all. Actually, I'm flabbergasted that you're even involved
in a discussion on realism when you're clearly not interested in the
precision or details of Napoleonic battle.
Nobody on the realistic side of the hobby wants to take away your right to
play games with historical themes. So, why are you concerned over and
opposed to those of us who want to pursue historical simulations that are
games? If you're not concerned about realism, why is it so important to
degrade the concept to those of us who find it meaningful and important?
Matt DeLaMater
Matt DLM
I know you porbably didn't mean to offend anyone in your last post, so
please take this as nothing more than a respectful disagreement with your
opinion.
You wrote:
"As one of those long time practitioners of "simulation" I was trying to
say that in my opinion, and in my opinion only, I think we have pushed
that conceptual framework about as far as it can go. We are just gluing
more chrome on the old chassis. (And I can point to no better proof of
this than 5, count them 5, editions of Empire! Empire is a good game and I
am very proud of it, but there comes a time to move on.)"
Clearly, it is fair to infer from your statement that you believe Empire
to be the end-all Napoleonic simulation, the "conceptual framework" that
cannot be further improved upon. I loved the line about the "just gluing
more chrome on the old chassis" that I assume applies to the rest of us.
Of course, I believe that "simulations" are in their infancy. We have just
begun to develop and explore exciting design concepts and new ideas.
Realism and playability are goals that are no longer viewed as mutually
exclusive. Empire may have been among the first of the "simulations" --
and I salute your contribution -- but it is certainly a far-cry from the
last word.
Busy Gluing More Chrome to the old Chassis,
Matt DeLaMater
DYE4MINIS
Division commander or higher), why would I be concerned (read as "having
to make such decisions about my miniatures") if my battalions have their
skirmishers deployed? I cannot find any evidence (nor probably should I
find) that a Division or Corps commander HAD to worry about such matters.
If the "game" is touted to be be a "simulation at the Grand Tactical
level", why should I as a gamer be saddled with making decisions that were
clearly out of my span of control? Wouldn't a corps commander be more
interested in where my troops are deployed, committed, supplied, led
(leader loss replacement), etc. than in micro-managing a puny little
battalion? I think so. IMHO, 1:60 games are great for simulating actions
up to a brigade level. Anything more than that and they begin to suffer
from an identity crisis; Am I playing a battalion commander, regimental,
brigade, etc.? In my mind, more design effort should be directed to the
challenges of higher command and the resultant problems that were
HISTORICALLY faced by men at that level. For example; allocation of
ammunition. At the beginning of ANY battle, this commodity was finite.
It's distribution may/may not be a factor in assigning objectives to
subordinate units. Obviously, there are many other considerations that can
be considered, but this example is the easiest to illustrate my point. One
probably would not assign the task of assalting a strong enemy position to
a command that did not have sufficient ammunition for a possible prolonged
firefight. How long should a prepatory bombardment last? What indications
should a corps commander look for before he sends his sub-units forward?
If things go wrong, do I have an escape route or a second line of defence
planned? To me, this would be TRUE grand tactical simulating! ; being
faced with having to make plans and decisions that my true historical
counterpart would have to make. Perhaps this posting will stimulate some
thoughts from designers and gamers alike, and a "true" sharing of ideas
and insight (without the flaming) might begin? I set the challenge.
Best Regards,
Tom Dye
Attactix
William McHarg
>Chris,
>The basic question I am asking is: "Are some rulesets more realistic
>(historically accurate) than others." Then I would have hoped to move to a
>discussion of what "realistic" means in theoretical and practical terms.
>I'll admit that I'm a little amazed at the level of opposition to the
>first premise.
I'll jump back in here, having been out of it for awhile.. :)
The devil is in the details, as they say. What you see as adding
realism, I see as simply more numbers. They are based on your
interpretation of what happened, and are no more accurate than your
assumptions.
>Webster's defines realism as "precision in representing the details of
>actual life." In the arts, realism implies an accretion of accurate detail
>to convey and represent life. So, obviously, realism in wargaming suggests
>a level of representation that would include accurate details. (Thus, by
>definition, a grand-tactical game that represents battalions would be
>taking a more realistic approach than one that only represents brigades --
>providing, of course, that it has done so with "precision".)
You can add details to a painting. They can be seen to be historic or
not as the case may be. When you add details to a game system, they
are valid only as far as your assumptions are true. They cannot be
independantly validated. We have sources about Napoleonic warfare,
but no firsthand knowledge.
In modern wargaming, there is a real database of what happens in many
circumstances. There is no database like that for Napoleonics.
If the grand-tactical game hypothesized above on the brigade level
gives the same results as the battalion-level game, I would argue that
it is no less realistic. It is simply a different solution for
simulating the problem.
What you call realism, is IMHO simply a preference for a different
level of complication. You like complicated, battalion-level games.
That is well and good. Why does that necessarily lead to a charge of
lack of realism for games that use a different level of resolution.
Reduction to absurdity. If the game could be designed, would a 1:1
grand-tactical game therefore be more "realistic" than the battalion
level game? It might be possible, but there would be very few takers
when that rules set went on sale.
>You proposed a concept called "historically reasonable" which turns out to
>be interchangeable with " my opinion."
>You said, (in a moment of historical reasonableness, no doubt), that "I
>don't give a whit about battalion level details, or the technical
>capabilities of the various weapons systems. I realize these were
>significant factors, but I don't care about them, and I don't want to
>*have* to care about them when I'm playing a Napoleonic tabletop battle."
>Okay, Chris, fine. What can I say to that stunning statement, because it
>really says it all. Actually, I'm flabbergasted that you're even involved
>in a discussion on realism when you're clearly not interested in the
>precision or details of Napoleonic battle.
He's not interested in the level of complication you are interested
in. That is a very different thing from not being interested in
precision or details. Complication does not equal realism.
>Nobody on the realistic side of the hobby wants to take away your right to
>play games with historical themes. So, why are you concerned over and
>opposed to those of us who want to pursue historical simulations that are
>games? If you're not concerned about realism, why is it so important to
>degrade the concept to those of us who find it meaningful and important?
Most of the "degrading" that goes on around here comes in the form of
dumping on people who use rules that are at resolved at a higher
organization level than battalion. Your very position invites
disagreement. Your position seems to be that if Napoleonic gaming
isn't at the battalion level, it cannot be realistic. My position is
that battalion level games are not inherently any more realistic than
any other level of game. If it were true, then squad level games
would be more "realistic" still, and 1:1 the ultimate in realism.
So what is the answer at the end of the day? Perhaps the level of
rhetoric is getting in our way. I doubt that either side will
convince the other of their position. Maybe we should retreat to our
lines grumbling about the cantankerous fools on the other side. :)
Mac
- -
I am trying to find myself. If I should return before I come
back, please ask me to wait.
Jim Getz
: Clipped...
: So what is the answer at the end of the day? Perhaps the level of
: rhetoric is getting in our way. I doubt that either side will
: convince the other of their position. Maybe we should retreat to our
: lines grumbling about the cantankerous fools on the other side. :)
: Mac
"...At the moment, synchronicity seems elusive."
Hal Berghel, "HTML Compliance and the Return of the Test Pattern",
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, No. 2, February 1996.
Last one back to the trench has to answer the next posting that starts
"Can anyone recommend a good game that..."
Jim
John Bicknell
>Webster's defines realism as "precision in representing the details of
>actual life." In the arts, realism implies an accretion of accurate detail
>to convey and represent life. So, obviously, realism in wargaming suggests
>a level of representation that would include accurate details. (Thus, by
>definition, a grand-tactical game that represents battalions would be
>taking a more realistic approach than one that only represents brigades --
>providing, of course, that it has done so with "precision".)
Matt, the first part of your discussion includes an important word:
"accurate". Simply including more detail in a game does not necessarily
make that game more "realistic". For example, compare the following two
paragraphs:
Waterloo Campaign, June 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte's final campaign culminating
in his defeat and abdication.
Waterloo campaign, June 1815, last action of the Napoleonic Wars, ending with the battle
of Waterloo (June 18), fought near Brussels, Belgium. NAPOLEON I, returned from exile,
faced the allied armies of Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. He defeated a Prussian
force at Ligny, then turned his attention to the British, under WELLINGTON. The British
took up a strong position S of Waterloo. Napoleon attacked the British position on
June 18, 1815. The battle was a desperate affair until the French Old Guard were
thrown into the battle and routed the badly damaged Anglo-Allied Army.
The second paragraph is a somewhat more detailed account of the campaign, but
it is horribly inaccurate.
The same can occur in wargame design. BTW, I am NOT making commentary on ANY
published wargames. I am only saying that detail does not necessarily equate
to realism. I have NO PUBLIC opinion on the relative merits of LoG, Empire,
NB, Piquet, Frappe, From Valmy to Waterloo, Battles for Empire, Column Line
Square, Napoleonique, Le Petit Empereur, In the Grand Manner, Eagle Bearer,
Vive L'Empereur, Marshal of France, Fire and Steel, or Shako.
I think realism has to be judged, as one poster pointed out, by looking at
the results of simulations. If playing a game over and over results in some
historically unlikely outcome...there are problems with that system. Internal,
intermediate, results can also be judged since a game
system defines a model universe with objects and different dynamics. Objects
being units, leaders, etc., and dynamics being activities like movement,
firing, combat, etc. Obviously, there can be judgments made as to how reasonably
these elements behave and interact with each other.
To simply say that a brigade-based game system is going to be inherently less
realistic than a battalion-based game system is not true.
If the brigade-objects interact in a reasonable manner it may be equally realistic
to a game with battalion-objects which interact in a reasonable manner.
The same applies to an object's characteristics. It is not necessarily more accurate
to distinguish between every model musket in the era than to abstract those
differences to a less 'granular' model. The same could be said for morale
grades. Having a game with 20 different morale grades is not necessarily more
accurate than a game with three morale grades. It depends upon how these
characteristics affect the objects within the system's dynamics.
Similar parallels can be drawn about the abstraction of different dynamics.
John Bicknell
Dan Dionne
|> If I am playing a "grand tactical" simulation (playing the part of
|> Division commander or higher), why would I be concerned (read as "having
|> to make such decisions about my miniatures") if my battalions have their
|> skirmishers deployed? I cannot find any evidence (nor probably should I
|> find) that a Division or Corps commander HAD to worry about such matters.
|> If the "game" is touted to be be a "simulation at the Grand Tactical
|> level", why should I as a gamer be saddled with making decisions that were
The argument for a player working at only one level of command, such as
C in C for a grand tactical game, is a compelling one on the face of it.
However, whenever I see such a structure implemented, I also see players
complaining about not having enough to do, or not being able to influence
the battle at some meaningful level. This can be a particular problem
with multi-player games. (Oddly enough, after 20+ years in the hobby,
I don't believe I've ever seen a miniatures system DESIGNED for multiple
players operating at different levels of command. That is, a system which
defines activities for a corps commander and different activities for a
divisional commander.)
But Tom's point is a good one. Routine decisions made at a lower or higher level of command should not be something the player has to deal with. That
sort of decision should be handled as doctrine, or else abstracted out of
the system. The only wargaming system I recall that really attempted to
address the issue of routinized doctrinal behavior was WRG 5th edition
Ancients. How many of you remember laboring over your standing orders?
I loved that aspect of the system, even though I lost a key battle
because my opponent filched my standing orders, read through them, and
then designed his own specifically to counter them.
--
Dan Dionne, ddi...@vnet.ibm.com
Standard Disclaimer: I do not speak for IBM, nor IBM for me.
Alec Habig
>You said, (in a moment of historical reasonableness, no doubt), that "I
>don't give a whit about battalion level details, or the technical
>capabilities of the various weapons systems. I realize these were
>significant factors, but I don't care about them, and I don't want to
>*have* to care about them when I'm playing a Napoleonic tabletop battle."
>
>Okay, Chris, fine. What can I say to that stunning statement, because it
>really says it all. Actually, I'm flabbergasted that you're even involved
>in a discussion on realism when you're clearly not interested in the
>precision or details of Napoleonic battle.
It could be said that Chris is not interested in Battalion level commands, but
in divisional or higher level commands?
>Nobody on the realistic side of the hobby wants to take away your right to
>play games with historical themes. So, why are you concerned over and
>opposed to those of us who want to pursue historical simulations that are
>games? If you're not concerned about realism, why is it so important to
>degrade the concept to those of us who find it meaningful and important?
You've just demonstrated what the controversy is about. Chris isn't opposed to
simulations and detail. He's just not interested in the small unit tactics
details. I find the fact that you you're confusing the terms "realism" and
"scale" quite enlightening.
I'd turn your question around : why do you find it so important to downgrade
the concept of realism at simulation scales that you are not interested in?
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/
Ban the Bomb: Make the world safe for conventional warfare!
Matt DLM
this is a minor point):
"(Thus, by definition, a grand-tactical game that represents battalions
would be taking a more realistic approach than one that only represents
There is a big difference between taking a "realistic approach" and
getting a "realistic outcome." All of you are quite right to critique the
problem of scale (and player control). Many battalion games are horribly
unrealistic, due largely to mechanical/time scale problems or by allowng
exaggerated player-control. I was making a theoretical comment, not a
practical one.
Once again, I never said that battalion level games are inherently more
realistic than any other scale. I wholeheartedly agree that realism must
be balanced out by pragmatic considerations. I also feel that there is a
point where too much representation becomes unrealistic as well.
Matt DeLaMater
DYE4MINIS
here, folks) should be written for three command levels. (Corps, Div.,
Bgde; Div., Bgde, Rgmt, etc.) I feel that the theory here is that 3 levels
provides the player with enough to get the "feel" of what's going on in a
Napoleonic battle. Any more would be "too much for the gamers to handle".
I am suggesting that perhaps 3 levels of command is too much to handle for
a "game" to call itself a simulation. Why not, as Dan suggested, write a
set where each gamer is only concerned with the problems faced at his
certain level of command? Obviously, multiple players would be required,
but don't we all usually game with others anyway? I remember the original
playtest version of John Hill's Johnny Reb where every gamer had his own
personal victory condition (that may or may not coincide with his side
winning the battle!) The overall commander only commanded the provost
guard that could arrest any player's figure if the overall commander felt
that he was "slacking off" in the fighting. It was fun as each participant
was "doing his own thing" within the scope of the battle. My point is
(forgive the reference to another period) that if each player would have
to face the problems that his real life counterpart had to face, the
"game" would be closer to being a truer (?) simulation. Game mechanics
don't have to be complicated to address important points; only that
important points are addressed if/when required. In Knight and Dennis'
"Rules for the Conduct of a Napoleonic Wargame using Small Scale Figures",
(a VLB system), choices for responding to a "change of situation" (COS)
are limited. After studying the COS and the possible responses, I could
not think of any possible responses that were left out. I use this as an
example where an inherently complex combat situation has been simplified
with the important points being addressed. Command control is abstracted
at the lower levels (below brigade) thus players can concentrate on
problems at the level they are playing (Div or Corps). Sorry for the
length of this post, but I feel (for once) that fresh, new ideas are now
beginning to surface, because we (gamers) are beginning to agree on
"what's important" (and it's not which cannon/musket shot better!)
Douglas Ferguson
confusion about what "simulation" is. Simulation is the attempt to
recreate real life in the abstract, whether you are trying to simulate
the behavior of growing crops or leading corps. ALL simulation
requires abstracting one or more elements of "reality" - that is why
you are simulating, and not doing it for real.
The test for a simulation is whether it produces acceptably accurate
results (this being an entirely subjective judgement) based on
repeated trials. In general, one decides what the key variables to be
simulated are, and then tests to see whether changes in them change
the outcome in ways that mirror reality to the desired degree. If
they do, you declare the simulation "valid" for your purposes. In a
more advanced simulation, you test to see whether the items you
abstracted out make a difference when they are included - this
requires considerable modeling effort, and is seldom attempted short
of computer simulations.
A major shortcoming of ALL simulations is the lack of precise
knowledge of the mechanics of the real events being simulated. In the
case of Napoleonic battlefield mechanics, all of the practitioners are
dead. Nevertheless, we can ATTEMPT to model some of those mechanics,
as best we can, based on the historical record.
Mr Getz has stated that:
"OK, so you want to talk about reality. If that be the case, answer
my realistic questions in my simulator quiz."
as though his "simulator quiz" was, in fact, a measure of simulation
fidelity. Shame on you, Mr. Getz. Those sorts of red herrings do not
advance the argument at all (and, incidentally, although you stated
that "an opinion that the fore mentioned cavalry unit could move at
120 miles an hour would not get my vote of confidence" when, in fact,
the 7th Cavalry in Vietnam COULD, indeed, cross a field at 120 miles
an hour in their Hueys - it was your ASSUMPTION about your questions
in the quiz that should not get your "vote of confidence").
Reality, then, is not inherently knowable to the extent required to
make any simulation perfect. What are we to do? Accept anything as
valid if someone says that it is, simply because we cannot muster the
omniscience required to refute it? That is not necessary. All we
need do is judge each simulation BASED ON ITS OWN CLAIMS TO SIMULATION
FIDELITY.
For example, Legacy of Glory (tm) states that it wants to "not only
place its players in the role of Napoleonic Army or Corps Commanders,
but also foster a sharper appreciation for the challengers those
commanders faced." We can (subjectively) judge the simulation ability
of the game against those factors it chooses to simulate - but not
those it chose not to. We can also (subjectively) judge whether those
factors are the correct ones, based on a reading of history.
The rules that cannot make claim to simulation veracity are the ones
that do not attempt to state what they are simulating, or do so in
ways that are ambiguous or misleading. Statements that they are
designed to "reflect the mind and courage of the Napoleonic commander"
or are "designed to allow a refight of a large Napoleonic battle in
four hours or less" tell you that the designer had gaming goals in
mind, not simulation ones. Any simulation value to those rules is
accidental or, at best, serendipitous.
I have played many of the Napoleonic rules out there, and have even
written my own (alas, as yet unpublishable) rules. I have found some
of them fun, but few of them seriously "realistic" in the sense that
outcomes occur in the way that my (subjective but informed) judgement
tells me that they ought. Napoleonic rules sets that yield success to
the commander who best uses infantry firepower and infantry/cavalry
tactical combined arms ("infantry pins the enemy and cavalry destroys
them") are difficult to justify from a simulation standpoint.
Another point that I want to make is that good simulations limit
themselves. It is, as pointed out above, impossible to mimic reality,
even if we get out and reenact the event with live ammo, because
hindsight is still present. Therefor, realistic rules set designers
consciously decide what they will exclude from the beginning of the
design, and avoid temptations to add details simply because they can.
One popular Napoleonic rules set, which I won't mention by name... oh,
what the hell, I talking about Napoleon's Battle (tm), distinguishes
between 3lb and 4lb guns, but not between dragoons and hussars. This
bit of added "chrome" tells me that the designers included the easy
things but excluded the hard. Not a good recipe for simulation value.
Finally, I am enjoying this interchange and hope that you all keep it
up, in good humor if at all possible. Bob Jones indicated that he
fears "driving away potential gamers." Fear not, Mr. Jones. Guys who
are willing to play with toy soldiers are made of tougher stuff. You
may "thank God for people like Mr. Getz in this hobby." I thank her
for people like Matt DLM, who knows how to fight the good fight.
Still dreaming the dream (that I can get a good refight of Auerstadt)
Doug Ferguson
Russell Canady
>
>mat...@aol.com (Matt DLM) wrote:
>
>I'll jump back in here, having been out of it for awhile.. :)
>
>The devil is in the details, as they say. What you see as adding
>realism, I see as simply more numbers. They are based on your
>interpretation of what happened, and are no more accurate than your
>assumptions............
>
I have enjoyed this line of discussion, but hate to see how easily people
can take the criticism of an arguement personaly. Maybe if we never used
the word "you" or "your" when responding there would be fewer bad feelings.
Expressions like "others", "some gamers", "some of my best friends", etc.
could be used just as easily.
Peace on all
Russ
DYE4MINIS
much in the semetics and miss the point. Totally agree with your sediment
that we who push the toy soldiers are made of sturdier stock! (At least
I'd like to think so!)
Tom
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[Matt writes:]
>Chris,
While we're talking about "accuracy" and "precision," please note that
there's no "h" in "Cris." ;)
>The basic question I am asking is: "Are some rulesets more realistic
>(historically accurate) than others." Then I would have hoped to move to a
>discussion of what "realistic" means in theoretical and practical terms.
>I'll admit that I'm a little amazed at the level of opposition to the
>first premise.
I think the "level of opposition" is a function of a disagreement with
an assumption that underlies your "first premise." Namely, you're
assuming that we know (or can know) enough about history to determine
whether a given rules set does or does not correlate to that history.
We don't, and can't. Witness the recent arguments about the signifi-
cance of musketry and bayonets in the NAP and ACW eras, wherein folks
were able to cite published histories, by recognized scholars, based
upon primary source materials, *which 'proved' mutually incompatible
theses*! When the recognized scholars and primary sources give such
widely varying reports on the history itself, how can *we* purport to
judge whether "some rules sets [are] more realistic (historically
accurate) than others?"
>Webster's defines realism as "precision in representing the details of
>actual life." In the arts, realism implies an accretion of accurate detail
>to convey and represent life. So, obviously, realism in wargaming suggests
>a level of representation that would include accurate details. (Thus, by
>definition, a grand-tactical game that represents battalions would be
>taking a more realistic approach than one that only represents brigades --
>providing, of course, that it has done so with "precision".)
>You proposed a concept called "historically reasonable" which turns out to
>be interchangeable with "my opinion."
>You said, (in a moment of historical reasonableness, no doubt), that "I
>don't give a whit about battalion level details, or the technical
>capabilities of the various weapons systems. I realize these were
>significant factors, but I don't care about them, and I don't want to
>*have* to care about them when I'm playing a Napoleonic tabletop battle."
>Okay, Chris, fine. What can I say to that stunning statement, because it
>really says it all. Actually, I'm flabbergasted that you're even involved
>in a discussion on realism when you're clearly not interested in the
>precision or details of Napoleonic battle.
I'm going to give you an analogy to explain my position. If, after
reading it, you still wish to mischaracterize my position (as you've
done above), then there's no point in discussing the issue.
Assume I live in a white house, on the side of a low hill, and that I
can see that house from 500 yards away on another hill. Let's further
assume that there's a three-inch bump running across my sidewalk,
halfway to my door, and that I have a shiny, brass door knocker with
my street number engraved on it. Let's further assume that I'm going
to paint a picture of my house, AS VIEWED FROM THAT OTHER HILL.
Should my painting include the bump in my sidewalk? What about my
door knocker? Are these details necessary to make my painting "more
realistic (accurate)?"
I suggest that it depends on whether you would notice them if you
looked at my house FROM THAT OTHER HILL. I'm reasonably certain that
you couldn't see, let alone attend to, the bump in the sidewalk. And
unless the light caught the door knocker and reflected your way, I
doubt you'd see that either.
Both of these are *significant* details ... IF YOU'RE WALKING UP MY
SIDEWALK. You need to notice that bump, or you're likely to trip on
it. And you need to notice the door knocker, or you won't know you're
at the right address. They are significant details ... IF YOU'RE
WALKING UP MY SIDEWALK.
But they're *not* significant details FROM THAT OTHER HILL. I'd
ignore the bump in the sidewalk altogether. And if I represented the
door knocker it all, I'd tint the door color to give just a hint that
something bright may be there. Because in most circumstances, that's
what you'd see FROM THAT OTHER HILL.
Forgive the "shouting," but I felt it necessary to emphasize the
importance of *perspective* in the above analogy. A significant
detail from one perspective might become an unnecessary and indeed
*unrealistic* distortion from a different perspective.
I'm not the least bit interested in simulating *battles*, _per se_.
I'm interested in simulating *command*, and a model of command must
consider *the perspective of the commander*. And I suggest that the
perspective of a grand-tactical commander would rarely include the
activities of individual battalions, and even more rarely the speci-
fic capabilities of weapons systems. These are like the brass door
knocker and the bump in the sidewalk, respectively; they matter if
you're walking up the sidewalk (at the tactical level), but they're
all but invisible if you're standing on that other hill, 500 yards
away (the grand-tactical level).
>Nobody on the realistic side of the hobby wants to take away your right to
>play games with historical themes. So, why are you concerned over and
>opposed to those of us who want to pursue historical simulations that are
>games? If you're not concerned about realism, why is it so important to
>degrade the concept to those of us who find it meaningful and important?
I don't "degrade the concept [of realism] to those ... who find it
meaningful and important." I degrade cowards who think *their* per-
spective on history is the only "realistic (historically accurate)"
one. I call you a coward," because you're afraid to step up to the
podium and say "This is my opinion." That's not enough for you; you
have to portray your personal opinions as being "more realistic
(historically accurate)."
You use "realism" as a club to beat others into submission ... "Okay,
I just 'play games with historical themes.' But I'm 'not concerned
about realism,' so I'll just slink over here in a corner and play with
my toys while you do something profound and important."
And *that's* why I'm "opposed to those of [you] who want to pursue
[realism]." It's your smug, self-righteous, arrogant *cowardice* that
I find repulsive, and not your taste in games.
Cris
"Every mighty oak was once a nut that stood its ground."
-- Anonymous
Robert M. Wolsky
On Mar 28, 1996 23:47:37 in article <Re: An Open Letter to Jim Getz>,
'mat...@aol.com (Matt DLM)' wrote:
>Webster's defines realism as "precision in representing the details of
>actual life." In the arts, realism implies an accretion of accurate detail
>to convey and represent life. So, obviously, realism in wargaming suggests
>a level of representation that would include accurate details. (Thus, by
>definition, a grand-tactical game that represents battalions would be
>taking a more realistic approach than one that only represents brigades --
>providing, of course, that it has done so with "precision".)
In your definition, Matt !! There is no 'empirical' formula for wargame
realism.
One man's 'accurate details' are another man's useless chrome.
>You proposed a concept called "historically reasonable" which turns out to
>be interchangeable with " my opinion."
The point here is that you will enjoy a set of rules that IN YOUR OPINION
produce historically accurate results, taken in measure with whatever else
the rules provide that you like, or dislike.
>Okay, Chris, fine. What can I say to that stunning statement, because it
>really says it all. Actually, I'm flabbergasted that you're even involved
>in a discussion on realism when you're clearly not interested in the
>precision or details of Napoleonic battle.
This paragraph smacks of 'true belief'. No further comment !!
>Nobody on the realistic side of the hobby wants to take away your right to
>play games with historical themes. So, why are you concerned over and
>opposed to those of us who want to pursue historical simulations that are
>games? If you're not concerned about realism, why is it so important to
>degrade the concept to those of us who find it meaningful and important?
Concerned ? Opposed ? Degrade ? Who said anything even approaching
any of this ? The point being made is that this is a very subjective hobby.
>Matt DeLaMater
--
Rob Wolsky
Robert M. Wolsky
stock in the 'read the ad copy, and judge the rules' analysis. Some authors
don't write the "blurbs" themselves, so how can they have anything to do
with the aim of the author vis-a-vis "simulation".
--
Rob Wolsky
Matt DLM
I think it's unfortunate that you chose to personalize the debate by
calling me a coward, etc. I'll just assume for now that you were worked up
when you sent it; we've all posted things in the heat of the moment that
we regretted saying later.
For instance, when I wrote that "(Thus, by definition, a grand-tactical
game that represents battalions would be taking a more realistic approach
than one that only represents brigades -- providing, of course, that it
has done so with "precision"), I probably shouldn't have said that without
taking the time to clarify what I meant.
Cris, you said I was guilty of "assuming that we know (or can know) enough
about history to determine whether a given rules set does or does not
correlate to that history." Okay, I plead guilty to that charge. Then you
said: "We don't, and can't." Of course, I disagree.
If, Cris, most rules sets were relatively realistic, then you might have a
point. But most rule sets are so pointedly inaccurate that the discussion
seldom reaches the level where the available historical evidence is
challenged or discussed. Again, this gets to the difference between
simulations and games; a simulation is concerned with such historical
discussions and games frankly don't care (after all, its only a matter of
some "coward's" opinion).
I agree with your point about perspective -- beforehand I would have
presumed that you understood that realism implies a realistic perspective
(or point-of-view in literature). Forgive me for pulling a "Getz-ism"
here, but in a series of articles by Phil Johnston in the Historical
Gamer, he credited Legacy of Glory with being an excellent example of a
"perspective-based" simulation. To me, realism and perspective are
inseparable; you can't have a Realistic game, novel or painting that
fundamentally botches the issue of perspective. Thus, a set of rules that
represents too much detail would have a problem with perspective that
might sink its pretensions to realism, despite all its wealth of
"accurate" details.
As I have said, to be a valid simulation, a rules set must first present a
relatively cogent, fact-based interpretation of history. This
interpretation should be supported by considerable historical research.
The framework of the game must be a reflection of that interpretation and
research. Every design decision is informed by that research.
Most rules sets that I would categorize as games start from a different
angle. The framework and mechanics start first, then some history is added
to it to give the game the requisite flavor.
I think it is generally very easy to distinguish between the two
approaches (though some games straddle the line). I also believe that, in
those games that attempt to interpret history, you can have a very
productive discussion about the game's assumptions, theories, and
interpretations.
Interestingly enough, magazines like Jean Lochet's EE&L and books like
Nosworthy's "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies" are excellent
examples of what can happen as a result of the simultaneous pursuit of
simulations and history. Often times, the problems and questions turned up
by simulations have led to the pursuit of historical information and
theories that would not have been found and published otherwise (the works
of Nafziger and Bowden present more excellent examples of this synergy).
Forgive me for taking pride in this aspect of our hobby!
Yes, Cris, I'm troubled by the attitude that says everything is a matter
of opinion. I'm troubled when the pursuit of history becomes a tertiary
concern to our gaming. I'm troubled by the commercial forces in the hobby
that foster the attitude among some of you that realism is only for
self-infatuated fools.
Cris, you wrote, "I degrade cowards who think *their* perspective on
history is the only "realistic (historically accurate) one."
Well, Cris, while I may or may not be a coward, I would be the last person
to say that my "perspective on history is the only 'realistic
(historically accurate) one.' " I pray that I have too much respect for
other thinkers and for history to believe something that absurd.
Matt DeLaMater
"A very small percentage of nuts that stand their ground become mighty
oaks -- the rest remain nuts." -- Anonymous
Matt DLM
Here's a pertinent defintion of what I mean by simulation from Webster's:
"the representation of a system by a device (such as computer) that
imitates the behavior of the system."
A short, useful,Webster's definition of Realism is: "accurate
representation."
So, without using a word of my own, a realistic simulation can be defined
as: "the accurate representation of a system by a device that imitates the
behavior of the system."
Robert, when you said "There is no 'empirical' formula for wargame
realism," you seemed to imply that I gave one, or believed there was one.
If so, can you point out to me where I said that? Otherwise, I'll have to
resort to the all too familiar refrain of "I never said that..."
Robert, is it possible to discuss two rule sets to determine if one or the
other is a better simulation (e.g., a more "accurate representation of a
system by a device that imitates the behavior of the system.") ? I'm not
saying that each discussion will lead to a definitive answer. I just want
to know if the end result of any such debate must always be "well, that's
your opinion" no matter how many historical facts one uses to illustrate
the argument? Are you open to or interested in such discussions?
I realize that I have upset people (you included, perhaps?) in the past by
challenging Napoleon's Battles claims of being a realistic simulation of
Napoleonic warfare. While I got called a lot of names, and accussed of a
great many things, never once did anyone demonstrate, through the use of
history, how Napoleon's Battles was a particularly valid or insightful
simulation. I found that illuminating.
What would you have us do, Robert? Should we bite our tongues each time a
new rule set comes along making claims of being a great simulation, or,
after the claim is publicly made, do we have the right to point out what
we consider the game's historical problems? Is it possible to point these
things out without the game's fans taking it as a personal insult?
Granted, some of us have not been as tactful as we could have been, and I
apologize if I hurt anyone's feeling when I criticised Napoelon's Battles.
I meant only to attack a game, not any people (similarly concerning
Piquet).
Matt DeLaMater
Douglas Ferguson
>Cris here. :)
>I don't "degrade the concept [of realism] to those ... who find it
>meaningful and important." I degrade cowards who think *their* per-
>spective on history is the only "realistic (historically accurate)"
>one. I call you a coward," because you're afraid to step up to the
>podium and say "This is my opinion." That's not enough for you; you
>have to portray your personal opinions as being "more realistic
>(historically accurate)."
>You use "realism" as a club to beat others into submission ... "Okay,
>I just 'play games with historical themes.' But I'm 'not concerned
>about realism,' so I'll just slink over here in a corner and play with
>my toys while you do something profound and important."
>And *that's* why I'm "opposed to those of [you] who want to pursue
>[realism]." It's your smug, self-righteous, arrogant *cowardice* that
>I find repulsive, and not your taste in games.
>Cris
>"Every mighty oak was once a nut that stood its ground."
> -- Anonymous
Wow, Chris. That was a very mature message that advanced the argument
in this thread greatly. Please don't hold back like this. Tell us
how you really feel. The argument is not intellectual, as you
indicate, it's personal. Why don't you challenge MattDLM to a duel,
and the results of that duel will resolve the issue of the role of
simulation in gaming for all time.
Doug
Jim Getz
: Dear Robert Wolsky and other "opinionists",
: Here's a pertinent defintion of what I mean by simulation from Webster's:
: "the representation of a system by a device (such as computer) that
: imitates the behavior of the system."
: A short, useful,Webster's definition of Realism is: "accurate
: representation."
: So, without using a word of my own, a realistic simulation can be defined
: as: "the accurate representation of a system by a device that imitates the
: behavior of the system."
: clipped
: I realize that I have upset people (you included, perhaps?) in the past by
: challenging Napoleon's Battles claims of being a realistic simulation of
: Napoleonic warfare. While I got called a lot of names, and accussed of a
: great many things, never once did anyone demonstrate, through the use of
: history, how Napoleon's Battles was a particularly valid or insightful
: simulation. I found that illuminating.
:clipped
: Matt DeLaMater
Matt
While that may be a definition of a simulation it is really no assistance
in recognizing one if it feel on your foot. I don't think the discussion is
about defining a simulation, it seems to be about what meets that
definition. Even your, or Webster's, definition of simulation has that
"accurate" concept in it. How do we judge that?
At various times you have said that simulations are "realistic, "concerned
with such historical discussions," have a "realistic perspective,"
"present a relative cogent, fact based interpretation of history," is
supported by considerable historical research," and is "easy to
distinguish..." Now I guess I could point out that "realistic,"
"persepctive," "relative," "interpretation," "considerable," and "easy"
are all concepts that are fairly close to "opinion." However, I am more
interested in finding out from you just exactly how do we judge a game to
be a simulation. Would you please provide a list of verifiable, objective,
quantitative criteria that a game must meet in order for it to be classed,
by you, as a simulation? And please feel free to use examples from LoG if
it will advance the discussion. I think this would help greatly to get
this discussion back on line. Thanks!
Jim
Robert Rodgers
: >Cris here. :)
: >meaningful and important." I degrade cowards who think *their* per-
: >spective on history is the only "realistic (historically accurate)"
: >one. I call you a coward," because you're afraid to step up to the
: >podium and say "This is my opinion." That's not enough for you; you
: >have to portray your personal opinions as being "more realistic
: >(historically accurate)."
:
: >You use "realism" as a club to beat others into submission ... "Okay,
: >I just 'play games with historical themes.' But I'm 'not concerned
: >about realism,' so I'll just slink over here in a corner and play with
: >my toys while you do something profound and important."
:
: >And *that's* why I'm "opposed to those of [you] who want to pursue
: >[realism]." It's your smug, self-righteous, arrogant *cowardice* that
: >I find repulsive, and not your taste in games.
Without actually rising to the bait, may I ask if this isn't like the pot
calling the kettle black?
This type of message is uncharacteristic of you Chris. Are you having a
bad day?
Bob
Robert M. Wolsky
Once again, my replies follow:
On Apr 01, 1996 17:32:37 in article <Re: An Open Letter to Jim Getz>,
'mat...@aol.com (Matt DLM)' wrote:
>Robert, when you said "There is no 'empirical' formula for wargame
>realism," you seemed to imply that I gave one, or believed there was one.
>If so, can you point out to me where I said that? Otherwise, I'll have to
>resort to the all too familiar refrain of "I never said that..."
>
such-and-such scale MUST include such-and-such detail
is an opinion about game rules, and not in any way 'historical'.
>Robert, is it possible to discuss two rule sets to determine if one or the
>other is a better simulation (e.g., a more "accurate representation of a
>system by a device that imitates the behavior of the system.") ? I'm not
>saying that each discussion will lead to a definitive answer. I just want
>to know if the end result of any such debate must always be "well, that's
>your opinion" no matter how many historical facts one uses to illustrate
>the argument? Are you open to or interested in such discussions?
Of course you are correct. My point is that if two people (here's a wild
guess - you and Cris Brown) have different opinions on what is to be
simulated to make a good game, you have a problem. I don't think
you can take any one historian's or gamer's viewpoint and use it
as some sort of 'history slide rule'. Too many different opinions !!
>I realize that I have upset people (you included, perhaps?) in the past by
>challenging Napoleon's Battles claims of being a realistic simulation of
>Napoleonic warfare.
Never played it.
--
Rob Wolsky
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[In response to my post alleging cowardice on the part of those who
insist that their opinions are a matter of "realism," Doug writes:]
>Wow, Chris. That was a very mature message that advanced the argument
>in this thread greatly. Please don't hold back like this. Tell us
>how you really feel. The argument is not intellectual, as you
>indicate, it's personal. Why don't you challenge MattDLM to a duel,
>and the results of that duel will resolve the issue of the role of
>simulation in gaming for all time.
If it bothers you, Doug, that I won't let you hide behind colloquial
rhetoric -- the words "realistic," "realism," and "historical fact"
litter this newsgroup like fish feces at the bottom of an aquarium --
if it bothers you that I demand instead a smidgeon of intellectual
honesty regarding the limits of our knowledge, well, that's what
happens when you make such lofty claims about your own knowledge.
By way of analogy, assume that A=14, B=23, and most folks estimate
that C is between 4 and 38 (although some estimate C as high as 53,
and others as low as -17). Which of A or B is closer to C? You can't
say, because you don't know the value of C.
Assume NAPOLEON'S BATTLES = 14, and LEGACY OF GLORY = 23, and most
folks estimate that grand-tactics in the Napoleonic era fall between 4
and 38 (although some estimate it as high as 53, and others as low as
-17). Which of NB or LoG is closer to grand-tactics in the Napoleonic
era? You can't say, because you don't know the value of grand-tactics
in the Napoleonic era.
To assert that you can say which of two or more rules systems is "more
realistic (historically accurate)" is to assert that you have certain
knowledge of history itself, that your evaluation of C=21 is not just
an opinion, but is rather a *fact*.
You've stepped into a pool of quicksand by positing "realism" as your
metric for assessing a rules system. I'm not going to step into the
quagmire with you, and I'm not going to toss you a rope. So, if the
ground is as firm as you allege, rise up and walk. Prove that C=21,
or whatever value you assert.
Specify, in the exacting detail of which you seem so fond, precisely
what historical commanders knew, and when, what mattered to them and
what did not, what they took care of themselves and what they left to
staffs and subordinates. Not vague estimates. Hard, empirically
verified mathematical probabilities, echoed by every historical
scholar on record, with NOT ONE WORD of dissent from any memoir, unit
diary, treatise, media report, letter to mom, or scholarly history.
(Note that this requires you to assert that you've *reviewed* every
single account of the events in question.) Nor is it sufficient for
you to prove that no one has ever disagreed with your proposed histo-
rical standard. I also want proof that no one COULD disagree, that
there is absolutely no possibility of our discovering evidence which
might warrant a differing conclusion.
If you can't prove the value of C, then you can't say whether A or B
is closer to C. If you can't prove your assessment of history, then
you can't prove which of two or more rules system is "more realistic
(historically accurate)." All you can do is offer an opinion.
You've made a helluva claim. Prove it.
William McHarg
>Dear Robert Wolsky and other "opinionists",
Oh, yeah, Hi...
>Here's a pertinent defintion of what I mean by simulation from Webster's:
>"the representation of a system by a device (such as computer) that
>imitates the behavior of the system."
You have to know the behavior of the system. My point is that your
representation of the "behavior of the system" is where your opinion
is coming into play. If you knew exactly how that system worked, you
could have some claim to "realism". I don't think you (or anyone
else) knows enough about the dynamics of a Napoleonic battle to claim
realism in their simulation. We are left with outcome based results
as a determining factor.
>A short, useful,Webster's definition of Realism is: "accurate
>representation."
>So, without using a word of my own, a realistic simulation can be defined
>as: "the accurate representation of a system by a device that imitates the
>behavior of the system."
See above. My thesis is that you don't know enough about system to
claim that your "imitation" is more realistic than anyone else's.
Particularly when you base your claim for realism on the fact that you
"simulate" battalion level vs brigade level. ( I do hope you will not
back off of your statements that this gives an inherently more
"realistic" simulation..)
>Robert, when you said "There is no 'empirical' formula for wargame
>realism," you seemed to imply that I gave one, or believed there was one.
>If so, can you point out to me where I said that? Otherwise, I'll have to
>resort to the all too familiar refrain of "I never said that..."
If there is not such a formula, how do you claim realism?
>Robert, is it possible to discuss two rule sets to determine if one or the
>other is a better simulation (e.g., a more "accurate representation of a
>system by a device that imitates the behavior of the system.") ? I'm not
>saying that each discussion will lead to a definitive answer. I just want
>to know if the end result of any such debate must always be "well, that's
>your opinion" no matter how many historical facts one uses to illustrate
>the argument? Are you open to or interested in such discussions?
I think that, yes, it must come down to that. If there is no
empirical formula for simulating Napoleonic warfare, then the
evaluation of the outcome must be based on the experience of the
gamers involved and what they wish to simulate. I would argue that
for all its warts (and there are many) that NB simulates large
multi-corps actions better than LoG, simply because it *can*.
>I realize that I have upset people (you included, perhaps?) in the past by
>challenging Napoleon's Battles claims of being a realistic simulation of
>Napoleonic warfare. While I got called a lot of names, and accussed of a
>great many things, never once did anyone demonstrate, through the use of
>history, how Napoleon's Battles was a particularly valid or insightful
>simulation. I found that illuminating.
I many years ago gave up with the battle of the memoirs. For any
historical citation you might give supporting a given point in
Napoleonic history, you get flooded with counterexamples. It is a
futile way of evaluating a game system. It is also indicative of the
mindset of people I have gamed with who are into the "simulation" side
of the hobby that they want to play this game.
I would suggest that no one could ever demonstrate to your
satisfaction that NB was a "particularly valid or insightful
simulation", simply because you have decided it is not and will accept
no other opinion.
>What would you have us do, Robert? Should we bite our tongues each time a
>new rule set comes along making claims of being a great simulation, or,
>after the claim is publicly made, do we have the right to point out what
>we consider the game's historical problems? Is it possible to point these
>things out without the game's fans taking it as a personal insult?
>Granted, some of us have not been as tactful as we could have been, and I
>apologize if I hurt anyone's feeling when I criticised Napoelon's Battles.
>I meant only to attack a game, not any people (similarly concerning
>Piquet).
There is plenty of room for all opinions on rules sets. The problem
here lately stems from a small group of people who have gone beyond
simply discussing the merits of different rules. Anytime certain sets
are discussed, they jump in and flood the thread with vitriol against
those rules.
It should be possible for people who want to discuss Napoleon's
Battles or DBM to do so without being bombarded with a bunch of crap.
We know these people's opinions about these rules. Their actions are
more in the vein of disruption than enlightenment.
The web page of one of these individuals contains a diatribe against
the "dumbing down of the hobby", with NB and DBM the chief culprits in
their opinion. This looks like a crusade, not an opinion, given their
actions in the recent past.
I tried 60:1 games, Matt. I played Empire III with a group of about 6
guys for several years. We bought your game, and frankly it just
wasn't what we were looking for either. (Hey, at least you got the
sale..) Napoleon's Battles isn't the be-all and end-all of Napoleonic
gaming. But it fits what we want to do. If a set we like better in
that scale comes along, we'll switch. (I've rebased thousands of
figures for several different periods. Frankly I can't see why people
get so cranked about it...)
I like the brigade level game. It fits how I want to simulate
Napoleonic battles. As such, I do not agree with your assertions in
previous posts that battalion level simulations are inherently more
realistic. They do a poor job of representing multi-corps battles,
IMHO....
MSiggins
writes:
>By way of analogy, assume that A=14, B=23, and most folks estimate
>that C is between 4 and 38 (although some estimate C as high as 53,
>and others as low as -17). Which of A or B is closer to C? You can't
>say, because you don't know the value of C.
>Assume NAPOLEON'S BATTLES = 14, and LEGACY OF GLORY = 23, and most
>folks estimate that grand-tactics in the Napoleonic era fall between 4
>and 38 (although some estimate it as high as 53, and others as low as
>-17). Which of NB or LoG is closer to grand-tactics in the Napoleonic
>era? You can't say, because you don't know the value of grand-tactics
>in the Napoleonic era.
I have been following this thread since the start and while it had some
real vigour it now seems to be going round in circles somewhat - no-one's
fault, just the nature of the topic. But since it has also been one of the
more interesting, I'd like to see some conclusions here - I think they'd
be useful for all of us.
Right. Without speaking for Matt DLM or Nap's Battles or anyone else, do
we have a problem with this devil's advocate statement?:
"If I design a set of rules/historical boardgame/computer game with the
theme of the Napoleonic Wars, I have to make a number of assumptions based
on historical sources. Those assumptions may be based on reading Bruce
Quarrie and nothing else, or they may be based on a scholarly analysis of
hundreds of volumes: acknowledged 'definitive' histories, secondary and
tertiary sources, foreign language sources and memoirs. Having done the
research and formed a personal model of realism, then I design a game
system based on those parameters. In the design phase I test the game's
mechanisms to see if they can recreate historical situations (line vs
column; commander inactivity; repeated cavalry charges; inexplicable acts
of heroism; armies that stand beyond all known morale rules etc etc) and
then keep testing them until they work.
If the systems are accurate, then I can recreate my model in game format
and, if I choose, present it to the public for sale. The element of luck
will create a range of outcomes within which history could be said to have
moved (without which we have a 100% recreation (and no point), not a what
if simulation). In turn, it may have been decided to compromise (out of
necessity) the systems to provide a more enjoyable or practicallly
playable game."
And that's it really. My point is that every designer, wittingly or not,
generates his own third variable, or historical reality - everybody knows
his value of C, since that is why we are discussing this right now. If he
is bright, he will keep testing his C model against 'reality' (his
reference books and personal interpretation) and if the cross checking
comes up with something odd, C may need changing. But whatever, C is built
into any rules set. If you don't agree with the C on offer - the way the
system runs - because it is no fun to play, or doesn't fit your view of
history, or whatever, then change it, play something else, or design your
own rules.
And that, it seems to me, is what keeps the miniatures hobby ticking over.
I have been in it for twenty years, and have never met someone who agreed
with me on every element of Napoleonic warfare. There is always another
interpretation of the 'facts', there is always subjectivity, there is
always a newer, more elegant, or plain trendy design technique or a
radical new book or theory (the Nosworthy's and Griffith's of this world).
And would it not be a boring hobby without all this?
So to name names, personally I'd take LoG over NB everytime. That is
because it is closer to my perception than almost any other ruleset, but
with the proviso that it isn't perfect. But then what is? NB has a
fundamental failure, for me, to convey grand tactics since it FEELS like a
battalion level game with the labels changed. That is fine, since I am not
forced to play it. Instead, I can spend my time playing the best set I
know (which happens to be a friend's unpublished system) and reading up on
history to see if I'm mistaken - edging that variable up or down by
fractions. Indeed, with time, I may come to see NB as the most accurate
simulation all along. Or perhaps WRG. Or perhaps Charge! I don't know, but
I really enjoy getting there.
Mike Siggins
Matt DLM
I was a bit incredulous when I read your most recent postings on this
thread. In them, you asked me to define a realistic simulation, or
something to that effect. (Of course, I am immensely flattered and will be
honored to begin such an inquiry in future postings, but, since Mr. Getz
claimed he was among the first to use the word simulation, I would presume
he already has a defintion in mind - so why not share it?). But first,
there is the troubling matter of your rather astonishing expectations for
such a definition:
Mr Getz asked me:"Would you please provide a list of verifiable,
objective, quantitative criteria that a game must meet in order for it to
be classed, by you, as a simulation?"
Then Cris Brown followed along this line when he wrote to DFerg: "Specify,
in the exacting detail of which you seem so fond, precisely what
historical commanders knew, and when, what mattered to them and what did
not, what they took care of themselves and what they left to staff and
subordinates. Not vague estimates. Hard, empirically verified,
mathematical probabilities, echoed by every historical scholar on
record...."
Previously in his posting, Mr. Brown treated us to a rather amusing
mathematical exposition, in which he assigned numerical values to our
various rules sets and posited that we had no way of quantifying
"historical truth" so we could not know which numerical value was closest!
He wrote, "If you can't prove the value of C, then you can't say whether A
or B is closer to C. If you can't prove your assessment of history, then
you can't prove which of two or more rules systems is "more realistic
(historically accurate)." I need not explore publicly the danger of this
"logic".
So let us now examine the extreme epistemological position Mr. Getz and
Mr. Brown have occupied in order to defend anti-realism. According to
them, folks, there are only two categories in the world:
1. The first is "Truth": that which is, in Mr. Getz's world,
"quantifiable, objective, verifiable" or, as Mr. Brown wrote, "hard,
empirically verified mathematical probabilites." An extremely limited
definition of truth by any non-stretch of the imagination!
2. Then they have the category of "Equally valid opinions". All history
evidently falls into this category, (including any form of revisionism).
An informed opinion is evidently no superior than an ignorant one.
Let me offer a more pragmatic definition of truth, one we can actually
live with in the real world (and in this conversation), an definition with
"cash value." What follows is a summary of the definition of truth and
inquiry given by American philosopher John Dewey (as found in The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy):
" 'Warranted assertion' " is the term for Dewey's version of truth.
Inquiry is initiated in conditions of doubt; it terminates in the
estabilishment of conditions in which doubt is no longer needed or felt
....Dewey once defined "truth" as the "working" or "satisfactory" or
"verified" idea or hyptheses....
"For Dewey the theory of inquiry is a generalized description of organic,
cultural, and formal conditions of intelligent actions. Such action is
provoked by problems of diverse kinds - political, ethical, scientific,
and aesthetic. But irrespective of the specific content of human problems
or the nature of problem situations, inquiry is a reflective evaluation of
existing conditions - of shortcomngs and possibilities....The purpose of
inquiry is to create goods, satisfactions, solutions, and integration in
what was initially a wanting, discordant, troubled and problematic
situation [sound familiar?]. In this respect, all intelligence is
evaluative, and no separation of moral, scientific, practical, or
theoretical experience is to be made.
" So commanding an achievement was Dewey's [definition] that 'pragmatism'
is often identified with the position he expounded...as a naturalistic
logic for evaluating and reconstructing human experience."
I would optimistically propose that we dedicate this thread to an "inquiry
into realism and simulation", and that we apply a far more reasonable
standard of truth - "warranted assertion" - rather than a totally
inapplicable and inappropriate "empirical" or "mathematical" standard. I'm
confident that both Mr. Getz and Mr. Brown will find John Dewey's
definition more amenable, as even they must surely find it dismal to
operate in the dry realm of truth they have so far proposed.
That means, gentlemen, that you anti-realists, or whatever you chose to
label your position, also need to start making some positive contributions
to the inquiry/discussion. Nihilism is not much of a defense, and
certainly appears to be a very desperate measure.
I hope this satisfies Mr. Brown's ill-humoured demands for "a smidgeon of
intellectual honesty regarding the limits of our knowledge." I assure you
Cris, that Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dewey, and myself are sincerely operating in
the best of faith. If you wish to continue to call me a coward, and defame
my use of words by calling them "fish feces at the bottom of an aquarium,"
please do so through my direct e-mail address (sometimes it helps to clear
the air privately). Afer all, there's all those potential gamers out there
to consider, and I really would like to have a productive dialogue with
you!
Matt DeLaMater
"Every mighty unabomber was once a nut that stood its ground" -- Anonymous
Jim Getz
: clipped
: And that, it seems to me, is what keeps the miniatures hobby ticking over.
: I have been in it for twenty years, and have never met someone who agreed
: with me on every element of Napoleonic warfare. There is always another
: interpretation of the 'facts', there is always subjectivity, there is
: always a newer, more elegant, or plain trendy design technique or a
: radical new book or theory (the Nosworthy's and Griffith's of this world).
: And would it not be a boring hobby without all this?
: clipped
Well said Mike. I for one would agree with your view. The object at least
for me is not the creation of dogma but the exploration of history. How I
go about it and how you go about may be and probably should be different,
but we can learn from each other's efforts and insights. The process is
probably far less important than the result.
Jim
Jim Getz
:clipped
: Mr Getz asked me:"Would you please provide a list of verifiable,
: objective, quantitative criteria that a game must meet in order for it to
: be classed, by you, as a simulation?"
:clipped
: I would optimistically propose that we dedicate this thread to an "inquiry
: into realism and simulation", and that we apply a far more reasonable
: standard of truth - "warranted assertion" - rather than a totally
: inapplicable and inappropriate "empirical" or "mathematical" standard. I'm
: confident that both Mr. Getz and Mr. Brown will find John Dewey's
: definition more amenable, as even they must surely find it dismal to
: operate in the dry realm of truth they have so far proposed.
: That means, gentlemen, that you anti-realists, or whatever you chose to
: label your position, also need to start making some positive contributions
: to the inquiry/discussion. Nihilism is not much of a defense, and
: certainly appears to be a very desperate measure.
:clipped
Matt -- Great to see that you have finally come around and agreed with
us!! If you want to call it "warranted assertion" instead of "opinion"
that is fine by me.
Now back to my question, because I am honestly interested, what criteria
do you set for a game being a simulation? You are after all the one still
seeming to defend that term, not I (regardless of whether I used it first
or not.) If Piquet, to pick a game, is not a simulation, why is it not? If
LoG is a simulation why is it?
I am not trying to be argumentative here. If you want to discuss realism
and simulation vs. other wargames, then can you help by providing a
distinction as you see it.
Jim
Phillip S. Myers
<snip>
: There is plenty of room for all opinions on rules sets. The problem
: here lately stems from a small group of people who have gone beyond
: simply discussing the merits of different rules. Anytime certain sets
: are discussed, they jump in and flood the thread with vitriol against
: those rules.
As an aside, I don't think that MattDLM is one of those people.
I think that a discussion about what a ruleset does poorly, together
with consideration of how that might be altered to improve it
(implying that the premise of the game is not faulty, but some of the
mechanics are) is worthwhile. In the end, of course, people do judge
for themselves what they want to play, and whether they want to modify
it. I think that LoG's order transmission system could be layered
over NB's battle mechanics without too much difficulty, and the guided
torpedo effect which seems to be the primary objection to the game as
simulation would be solved. (The timescale on the LoG charts is 25
min per TAC, NB is 30 min/turn, close enough for government work)
: It should be possible for people who want to discuss Napoleon's
: Battles or DBM to do so without being bombarded with a bunch of crap.
: We know these people's opinions about these rules. Their actions are
: more in the vein of disruption than enlightenment.
Agreed.
If a set we like better in
: that scale comes along, we'll switch. (I've rebased thousands of
: figures for several different periods. Frankly I can't see why people
: get so cranked about it...)
The biggest problem would seem to me if you played with more than one
group of people, some of whom played NB, and others Empire. You would
have to make a choice about how your army was based, so that you could
only play one of the sets with it, and have to borrow someon elses
troops to play the other (or paint two armies for the same period,
based incompatably)
: I like the brigade level game. It fits how I want to simulate
: Napoleonic battles. As such, I do not agree with your assertions in
: previous posts that battalion level simulations are inherently more
: realistic. They do a poor job of representing multi-corps battles,
: IMHO....
There is nothing inherently wrong with the brigade scale, so long
as a brigade behaves as a brigade would (I think that fire and fury
does a better job representing how brigades deployed than NB does). A
brigade will certainly act like a brigade does if all of its component
battalions, batteries and squadrons behave like battalions, batteries
and squadrons, AND their relationship to each other and their CO are
correct) The question bocomes how to ensure that the brigade behaves
appropriately for all of those interactions, without representing
those interactions (note that it's easy to get the multibattalion
thing wholly wrong if anything in the mix is wrong) Kinda lost where I
was going with this, brigade and battalion, neither is inherently more
accurate than the other, they have different problemsin getting them
right, and with the brigade, due to the coarseness of the scale, the
error looks bigger, even if the end result is just as unrealistic.
Phil
FX00
Come on guys, this "we can't know anything" crap is a pathetic excuse for
an argument. Nothing, NOTHING, can be proven with metaphysical certitude.
Would you make this same argument on behalf of a murderer who claimed
that he should not be held accountable for murder because no one can
"prove" the victim even existed. This kind of argument is a classic
sanctuary for weak-minded, freshman philosophers and is beneath both of
you.
If your point is that there are no valid points, then you render this (and
ANY other discussion on ANY topic) meaningless. It adds absolutely
nothing to a discussion of the place of history in historical gaming. You
can do better.
Best
Fred Stovall
FX...@AOL.COM
Jim Getz
: Jim and Cris,
: Come on guys, this "we can't know anything" crap is a pathetic excuse for
: an argument. Nothing, NOTHING, can be proven with metaphysical certitude.
: Would you make this same argument on behalf of a murderer who claimed
: that he should not be held accountable for murder because no one can
: "prove" the victim even existed. This kind of argument is a classic
: sanctuary for weak-minded, freshman philosophers and is beneath both of
: you.
Gee Fred I thought it was better than pathetic and you are right I did take
philosophy as a freshman, got an A too!
: If your point is that there are no valid points, then you render this (and
: ANY other discussion on ANY topic) meaningless. It adds absolutely
: nothing to a discussion of the place of history in historical gaming. You
: can do better.
OK let me try better. My point and my only point is that I believe most
truths, most realities, most waranted assertions, most opinions, most
whatever you want to call them come as a confidence interval, not a single
shining point. I am an engineer, I think like an engineer, and I believe
all the stats courses I have taken. As such, I believe that it is
unwaranted to distingush between shades of gray within that confidence
interval. As W. Edwards Deming has written, "There is no such thing as a
fact concerning an empirical observation." We know that Wellington won the
Battle of Waterloo with a high degree of certainty; there is very little
else about that battle that we know with equal certainty (for example the
formations used by the Guards in their final attack). I have spent 25
years of my life collecting and analyzing data to describe the behavior of
systems, and have never really felt that I have had absolute certainty of
my descriptions -- and have had my descriptions proved wrong more than once.
I do not believe that this prevents us from discussing history or from
drawing conclusions about historical events or wargames, but it does keep
me from claiming absolutes when it comes to many of the basic data from
which wargames are constructed, and that I think is the point here. If
anyone has a way of validating wargame mechanics, I would love to see it
because I would love to use it. Until then I am just stuck with my
opinions - which I might add are subject to change when there is enough
data to move the end points on that confidence interval.
Jim
Dan Dionne
|> Jim and Cris,
|>
|> Come on guys, this "we can't know anything" crap is a pathetic excuse for
|> an argument. Nothing, NOTHING, can be proven with metaphysical certitude.
|> Would you make this same argument on behalf of a murderer who claimed
|> that he should not be held accountable for murder because no one can
|> "prove" the victim even existed. This kind of argument is a classic
|> sanctuary for weak-minded, freshman philosophers and is beneath both of
|> you.
Hurray for Fred! History is not susceptible to the kind of positivistic
proof you guys are demanding. It is, instead, uncertain, within what
Chaim Perelman calls "the realm of rhetoric." That means that, in
order to make a case (or construct a wargame), you have to do the
following:
1. Explicitly declare your assumptions.
2. Expose your logic chain between assumptions and claims (rules).
3. Position yourself within the literature of the field. NOBODY
pays attention to someone who hasn't done the reading.
In terms of the argument we've watched spiralling into oblivion, that
means you say, "I stand with those who believe C=21. Rule X is a
consequence of that assumption. Support for that position is found
in Yadin, The Art of War in Biblical Lands."
This doesn't eliminate disagreement (it can't), but it clarifies the
terms of the argument and allows people to take reasonable positions.
My apologies for the pendantry of this post. The people on this
newsgroup have consistently demonstrated an ability to argue rationally,
calmly, and to good effect. I don't want to give that up.
Engcyb0
perhaps we can ask the participants to try this approach.
CB.
engcyb0
WilmNC
Matt DLM
without fictitious elements"
I find it interesting that even the word 'historical' implies a cetain
degree of realism in its definition and that it uses such terms as "real"
and "accurate." I also find it somewhat paradoxical that so many people
involved in historical miniatures, and belonging to the Historical
Miniatures Gaming Society, take such a dim (or cynical) view of the
discipline of history itself.
I think there is something of bad faith here. How can you be part of
something "historical" if you don't really believe there's much point or
purpose to historical research and inquiry (especially as it applies to
gaming)?
In my opinion, much of this bad faith stems from commercialism. Once you
go into rules design as a way to make money, and not as a hobby, then it
becomes expedient to sell to "the lowest common denominator". ( Not that
there's anything inherently wrong with trying to make money, or in playing
simple enjoyable games). And to write a profitable set of rules,
playability is going to override historical accuracy from the get-go. So
why not just admit it? The market is tough. Anyone that publishes a set of
rules is in a dilemma here.
My problem with the commercial forces is the cynicism it breeds, (however
unintentionally). In order to win market share, certain people have found
it effective to downplay the concept and possibility of realism. I believe
(opinion here) that this cynicism may severely undercut the reputation of
the hobby, and certainly confines its potential. (There is an extremely
hostile environment out there right now for anyone who makes a design that
has, say, more than forty pages of actual rules. Part of this hositility
is legitimate, as many of the designs claiming the mantle of simulation
proved to be neither playable nor realistic, thus alienating a large
portion of the hobby).
I share Fred's opinion that we are in the dawn of a new revolution in game
design, where the old dilemma of "playability versus realism" becomes more
and more irrelevant as our designs become increasingly elegant,
perspective-based, and more historically sound. There are dozens of gamers
out there right now working on rules sets to achieve this very purpose. At
some point, perhaps, the hobby will be able to sustain their efforts. I
wish them luck! Hopefully the environment will be soon become more
receptive to these rules sets.
I find it amusing when certain 'commercial' designers claim their games
are "as realistic" or "just as valid simulations" as other designs. Then,
when pressed, they can't back it up their assertions (making them
"unwarranted assertions"). Instead they attack the concepts they just
employed, or engage in semantic games that are meant to further cloud the
issues at hand. Isn't it the very definition of "bad faith" to use words
that you secretly believe are meaningless?
Naively Yours,
Matt DeLaMater
RJones7228
you suggest, designers that can't sell their product because it is too
"pure"?
This sounds a whole lot like the artistically pure painter who can't sell
his paintings because no one likes them! Of course, it is the buying
public that has it all wrong and are too stupid to know why they should
like his work! It isn't his failure-it's theirs!
Isn't this a trifle elitist? Perhaps these "realism" artistes that find
it difficult to sell their work, because of the crass and manipulative
"commercial" designers, should not publish their precious tracts-"casting
their pearls before swine, you know"-but keep them ingraved on gold
tablets that they will only show to properly prepared initiates on the eve
of every full moon!
A true artist doesn't care about sales; either his own, or other artist's.
Nor does he have much time to bemoan other's successes.
Incidentally, I'm quite prepared to debate, in a formal manner, history,
game design, "realism", even how to handicap a horse race, with you at any
time. Might be fun! How about a Lincoln-Douglas style event at
Historicon? I think you'll find I can be very real. The loser buys
dinner-The winner buys the wine. If it goes over big we can do a road
tour! Sell tickets! Oops! Sorry, that's commercial.
Relax, enjoy the hobby-the people in it and the joy of reading history and
playing games. Unlike "real" war it's not a life or death matter, and no
rule set is going to solve the "real" problems of mankind.
FX00
Is there any real use for these ad hominem attacks. I don't recall Legacy
of Glory being mentioned by Matt as the standard for historical gaming, as
you seem to imply. Nor do I think the sales (or lack thereof) of LOG has
anything to do with this discussion.
Matt makes a point regarding commercial viability which I think is a valid
one. I have no doubt that any prospective rules writer must consider the
very real possibility that he will never recover even a part of the time
or money he puts into publishing a set of rules. Unless you have
unlimited financial resources, this prospect is, at least, unpleasant and,
at most, prohibitive. If you disagree with his argument, perhaps you
could make an intelligent response rather than merely accusing him of
'sour grapes.'
If you have something of substance to add to this discussion, perhaps you
should proceed. If, however, the extent of your intellectual capacity is
petty, personal attacks, the why not recuse yourself and allow the rest of
us to conduct this discussion at a more mature level than you seem to be
able to maintain.
Best
Fred Stovall
FX...@AOL.COM
RJones7228
note I sent him. I guess you could say I concluded that his previous post
was directed at me. As to stopping ad hominem attacks, if we did that
we'd have absolutely nothing to do but share our misreadings of history,
and pontificate on our superior knowledge of the Napoleonic period, and
how our game of choice simulates it perfectly! Horrid thought!
I think some people have real difficulty in seperating the Ad Hominum from
rather mild critiques of their ideas. I don't think that I have
mentioned LOG in a critical way, nor do I have any intention of doing so.
The last time I said that, I was accused of "pretexts" to avoid criticism
of Piquet. (Sigh!)
Some people have a large psychological investment in wargaming. I am
reminded of the last Cold Wars when I went to a lecture by Brent Nosworthy
on the tactics of the Napoleonic Wars, and the findings in his last book.
I got about 25 very interesting minutes from Mr. Nosworthy and about 40
minutes of 2-3 "wargamers" trying to display their profound understanding
of the period by explicating at great length on their opinions.
If anyone cares to reflect on why more young gamers don't get into
historical wargaming, or why glacially-paced Napoleonic wargames are
somewhat out of fashion-one need look no further than the last 25 messages
on this thread.
FX00
The note I saw was posted to the newsgroup by itself. The text follows:
Best
Fred Stovall
FX...@AOL.COM
FX00
>>As to stopping ad hominem attacks, if we did that
we'd have absolutely nothing to do but share our misreadings of history,
and pontificate on our superior knowledge of the Napoleonic period, and
how our game of choice simulates it perfectly! Horrid thought!<<
If this is the way you feel, why bother posting in this thread? Why waste
the time of those who are
trying to carry on a serious discussion?
>>I think some people have real difficulty in seperating the Ad Hominum
from
rather mild critiques of their ideas. I don't think that I have
mentioned LOG in a critical way, nor do I have any intention of doing so.
The last time I said that, I was accused of "pretexts" to avoid criticism
of Piquet. (Sigh!)<<
I think anyone who read your post understood all too well your meaning
when you referred to "artists
who can't sell their paintings," etc. Nothing in your response even
bothered to address Matt's point,
which even if you disagree with it, is not unreasonable. If you're going
to dig at someone, at least
have the courage to own up to it.
>>Some people have a large psychological investment in wargaming.<<
Some people have a large psychological investment in chess, astronomy, and
basket weaving -- so
what? I'd hazard the opinion that whatever psychological investment a
person puts in wargaming,
large or small, is none of your concern.
>>I am reminded of the last Cold Wars when I went to a lecture by Brent
Nosworthy
on the tactics of the Napoleonic Wars, and the findings in his last book.
I got about 25 very interesting minutes from Mr. Nosworthy and about 40
minutes of 2-3 "wargamers" trying to display their profound understanding
of the period by explicating at great length on their opinions.<<
I don't know if you are aware of this, Bob, but participation in this
thread is voluntary. You don't
have to post, you don't even have to read it. If you feel it has nothing
to offer you, why do you
participate?
>>If anyone cares to reflect on why more young gamers don't get into
historical wargaming, or why glacially-paced Napoleonic wargames are
somewhat out of fashion-one need look no further than the last 25 messages
on this thread.<<
Really? I don't suppose you would care to elighten the rest of us with a
little analysis on this point.
Couldn't I just as easily make the statement that if these much heralded
"young gamers" wanted to
play card games, they would go to Vegas. I began playing Napoleonics when
I was 13 using Empire
III. Young gamers play role playing games that are just as complex than
any miniatures rules I have
seen. So what gives you this insight into the preferences of young
gamers. If you want to talk about
real barriers, lets talk about massive expense, difficulty finding
opponents, and the intimidation factor
of linking the game to events that occured over 100 years ago. These are
real disadvantages that
fantasy miniatures and role playing games don't have. But the solution to
these barriers is not to
separate history from historical games. I think gamers, old and young,
have varied preferences.
Personally, if a game specified that my range of action was dictated by
drawing cards from a deck,
I'd think it rather foolish. But someone else might think its a quantum
leap. For this reason, I have
always argued that the more games there are for any period, the better.
Even though I might prefer
Empire to Piquet, Legacy of Glory or any other game, I think their entry
into the market is a net
positive. But unless you have some valid reason to believe that those of
us who prefer games more
directly tied to history are sending the younger generation running for
cover, why not live and let live?
Bob, you said before that you can be serious -- time to put up or shut up.
Best
Fred Stovall
FX...@AOL.COM
FX00
If what you say is true, isn't any fact we accept as true merely a
confidence interval? So why do you distiguish your confidence interval
regarding, for intance, fluid mechanics from you confidence interval
regarding the formation of the Middle Guard at Waterloo during their
celebrated attack? Aren't both based upon evidence of varying types? If
there is conflicting evidence regarding one fact, does that necessarily
destroy the confidence interval regarding other facts?
Best
Fred Stovall
FX...@AOL.COM
RJones7228
Fred, what you just did in that last note makes my point exactly. You
again assumed I was speaking specifically of a certain rule set, and I am
not. You spoke of my game system with an obvious lack of knowledge as to
how it works, and you basically said that since the discussion doesn't
fit your standards, then please will I go away! Does it ever strike you
as odd that you end up talking to the same bunch of people that absolutely
agree with you?
As to a history in this hobby, I go back 30 years and have written for
most of the major newsletters and magazines, three rulesets that have been
published, and have lectured at several seminars on game design and
Napoleonic history. My conversations with Don Featherstone, Jack Scruby,
David Chandler, Scot Bowden, Jim Getz, and the "Duke" have been among some
of my warmest memories. I love and respect history, but I think many of
the distinctions that have been made between mechanics (Game) and history
(Simulation) are more than a little overblown. In fact, as gamers will
tell you, the history in most of the wargames is pretty good; it's the
game mechanics that sometimes suck!
Having said that, I have come to the conclusion over the last few years
that fresh approaches are needed and have tried to create one new
approach. It is not meant as a criticism of anything or anyone that I
think the approach offers some new "historical" avenues that may be
explored. It appears to garnering some support among gamers, and I look
forward to developing it over the next year or so.
Now if we are going to discuss simulations, history, and games, how would
you suggest we proceed?
Engcyb0
high confidence level in a person's analysis of historical events. Some
of us are obviously better at it than others. Some of us are more willing
to admit our deficiencies than others. And around and around it goes.
CB.
engcyb0
Engcyb0
that anyone can actually agree upon before proceeding any further. I
think that this may have gone down some rat holes, and would like to find
out what specifically are the issues being discussed.
CB
engcyb0
FX00
>>Fred, what you just did in that last note makes my point exactly. You
again assumed I was speaking specifically of a certain rule set, and I am
not.<<
Then maybe you can explain your last post. I have already read at least
one other post that came to the same conclusion I did.
>>You spoke of my game system with an obvious lack of knowledge as to
how it works, and you basically said that since the discussion doesn't
fit your standards, then please will I go away!<<
Gee, Bob, did I ever mention a certain set of rules? I don't recall doing
any such thing. Are you assuming I was speaking of a particular set of
rules? Hmmm -- seems I've heard this before. And what I said was that if
all you can contribute is personal attacks (or meaningless parables), you
are not adding anything to this discussion. If my standards are a little
higher that endless rounds of "oh yeah -- so's your old man," so be it.
>>Does it ever strike you
as odd that you end up talking to the same bunch of people that absolutely
agree with you?<<
As a matter of fact, if you've seen some of the discussions in which I've
been involved in this newsgroup, you would know I often talk to people who
don't agree with me. It does strike me as odd that you would pretend to
know who I talk to when you and I have never met except in this forum.
>>As to a history in this hobby, I go back 30 years and have written for
most of the major newsletters and magazines, three rulesets that have been
published, and have lectured at several seminars on game design and
Napoleonic history. My conversations with Don Featherstone, Jack Scruby,
David Chandler, Scot Bowden, Jim Getz, and the "Duke" have been among some
of my warmest memories.<<
WOW, while I am certainly impressed by the dropping of such names -- what
does it have to do with the discussion at hand.
>>I love and respect history, but I think many of
the distinctions that have been made between mechanics (Game) and history
(Simulation) are more than a little overblown.<<
Can you elaborate on this? In which cases do you find these distinctions
overblown?
>>Having said that, I have come to the conclusion over the last few years
that fresh approaches are needed and have tried to create one new
approach. It is not meant as a criticism of anything or anyone that I
think the approach offers some new "historical" avenues that may be
explored. It appears to garnering some support among gamers, and I look
forward to developing it over the next year or so.<<
So I guess the whole bit about driving away young gamers was . . . a
little overblown? As I said, regardless of whatever opinions I hold about
Piquet, I welcome any new entry into the hobby.
>>Now if we are going to discuss simulations, history, and games, how
would
you suggest we proceed?<<
I suggest that we proceed as this thread has been proceeding -- discussing
the role of history in historical games. Specifically, is it appropriate
to apply history as a device against which historical games are measured?
Best
Fred Stovall
FX...@AOL.COM
Robert Rodgers
<snip>
: Isn't this a trifle elitist? Perhaps these "realism" artistes that find
: it difficult to sell their work, because of the crass and manipulative
: "commercial" designers, should not publish their precious tracts-"casting
: their pearls before swine, you know"-but keep them ingraved on gold
: tablets that they will only show to properly prepared initiates on the eve
: of every full moon!
I guess I'll submit to being called an "elitist". And comparing wargame
design to art is interesting but hardly relevant.
: A true artist doesn't care about sales; either his own, or other artist's.
: Nor does he have much time to bemoan other's successes.
Thank you for letting us all know what a "true artist" feels.
: Incidentally, I'm quite prepared to debate, in a formal manner, history,
: game design, "realism", even how to handicap a horse race, with you at any
: time. Might be fun! How about a Lincoln-Douglas style event at
: Historicon? I think you'll find I can be very real. The loser buys
: dinner-The winner buys the wine. If it goes over big we can do a road
: tour! Sell tickets! Oops! Sorry, that's commercial.
If this were true you wouldn't have thrown out so many red herrings. A
debate isn't the goal, a discussion is. Debate tends to turn into a flame
war.
: Relax, enjoy the hobby-the people in it and the joy of reading history and
: playing games. Unlike "real" war it's not a life or death matter, and no
: rule set is going to solve the "real" problems of mankind.
True, but we're not trying to solve mankind's problems. We're trying to
get our games to simulate, as closely as we can, what happened 120 or so
years ago.
Someone else already said that any time a game designer comes forward to
defend his product as just as valid an opinion as any other, they tend to
be skeptical. Asking for reasons why certain machanics were designed the
way they were seems reasonable (to me).
Instead of arguing about personal interpretations of what "facts" are or
what "historical" means, why not discuss the nuts-and-bolts of the game
systems? NBs shortcomings have been discussed to death. Other game
systems have also been discussed and I welcome more.
This philosophical discussion of the meaning of life, the universe, and
everything is just a waste. Instead of everyone demanding that the
oposing viewpoint "prove" their assertions, why not offer the opposing
assertion, complete with backup? THAT would be interesting.
Bob
RJones7228
The rub is in the translation to the tabletop. This is where design
considerations cannot be seperated from the historical question. Few of
us would disagree on what happened in the broadest sense during an
historical event. How is it translated to the TT? Is it central to the
issue at hand?
Athletes will tell you that 90% of their gain is in the first few weeks of
training. Each week therafter gains less and less and at some point, an
actual decline of performance occurs. The first few general facts about a
period probably yield 90% of the usable information, each 10 pages of
rules after that probably adds a diminishing return, down to the point the
game is unplayable.
Each designer and gamer makes a subjective judgement about where that line
occurs. Is an heliocopter view, a rigid turn sequence, and an exact count
of the enemy units more or less important than the exact number of paces
in the Prussian Drill? That is a judgement and is an interpretive action,
not a scientific one. Does it make it any less historical to translate
the history to the table giving more or less emphasis to one factor or
another? Is that action a scientific act or an artistic one? There is
the issue, not the history.
Douglas Ferguson
<snip> You spoke of my game system with an obvious lack of knowledge
as to
>how it works, and you basically said that since the discussion doesn't
>fit your standards, then please will I go away! <snip>
This is exactly the problem. What in Fred's posting gave you the idea
that he has "an obvioius lack of knowledge as to how it works." I've
played "your" game system, and nothing in his posting gives me any
such knowledge. USE SNIPS BEFORE ATTRIBUTING KNOWLEDGE OR LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE TO ANYONE! If I missed a posting in which he displayed an
obvious lack of knowledge, pardon moi. BUT STILL USE SNIPS.
<snip>
>As to a history in this hobby, I go back 30 years and have written for
>most of the major newsletters and magazines, three rulesets that have been
>published, and have lectured at several seminars on game design and
>Napoleonic history. My conversations with Don Featherstone, Jack Scruby,
>David Chandler, Scot Bowden, Jim Getz, and the "Duke" have been among some
>of my warmest memories. I love and respect history, but I think many of
>the distinctions that have been made between mechanics (Game) and history
>(Simulation) are more than a little overblown. In fact, as gamers will
>tell you, the history in most of the wargames is pretty good; it's the
>game mechanics that sometimes suck!
<snip>
Sorry - name dropping. Personal foul, deduct 10 initiative points or
one free die roll marker.
<snip>
>Having said that, I have come to the conclusion over the last few years
>that fresh approaches are needed and have tried to create one new
>approach. It is not meant as a criticism of anything or anyone that I
>think the approach offers some new "historical" avenues that may be
>explored. It appears to garnering some support among gamers, and I look
>forward to developing it over the next year or so.
<snip>
I look forward to that.
<snip>
>Now if we are going to discuss simulations, history, and games, how would
>you suggest we proceed?
<snip>
Let us proceed with a discussion of what we think WAS significant in
Napoleonic warfare, let us proceed with an acknowledgement that no one
is in this thread for nefarious purposes, let us proceed with an open,
honest discussion that avoids paraphrasing others, let us proceed to
acknowledge that differences of opinion do not make discussion
impossible (a snip followed by an "I disgree" is more useful than a
snip followed by a "You are full of shit"), and let us proceed with
the agreement that our purpose is to promote understanding - if that
involves specific challenges to some rules systems (and even to
individuals to justify rules design decisions), then anyone who takes
such discussions to be personal will agree to stay off this thread
until they calm down and are "all better." THEN this will become a
useful discussion. If you do not agree to this, then... well, then!
Doug
PS Let's not continue with this "Open Letter..." title, since it seems
to me to be distracting.
Dan Dionne
|> Yes, history is an important factor in judging historical wargames.
Absolutely.
|> Athletes will tell you that 90% of their gain is in the first few weeks of
|> training. Each week therafter gains less and less and at some point, an
|> actual decline of performance occurs. The first few general facts about a
|> period probably yield 90% of the usable information, each 10 pages of
|> rules after that probably adds a diminishing return, down to the point the
|> game is unplayable.
I do not see any *inevitable* reason simple quantity of rules should
make a game unplayable. Even Advanced Squad Leader is playable, given
players with the endurance and dedication to assimilate the rulebook.
The current vogue in miniatures is for simple, fast-paced rules sets. Fine.
At the same time, however, I see disatisfaction with that approach setting
in, as some players want control over more variables. Equally fine. Most
of the arguments I see thrown around here criticizing one rules set or
the other seem unclear about what they are criticizing, however. It seems
to me that you can criticize a "simple" wargame by saying:
1) The game ignores essential variables (NB and the artillery issue).
That is, without certain variables being modelled, the game cannot
function as an acceptable simulation.
2) The game mechanics model essential variables incorrectly. That is,
the mechanics require things to happen in a way different than they
happened.
You can criticize a "complex" wargame by saying:
1) The cognitive load on the players is too high; therefore, the game
does not move at an acceptable pace.
2) same as (2) above.
The tradeoff for item (1) in both cases should be obvious. We can certainly
disagree about what constitutes an "essential" variable, or about how many
variables should be modelled. I would suggest, however, that a quality
design can handle a large number of variables without forcing the player
to remember too much.
As for item (2), we are left with the principles I mentioned in an earlier
post: clarify your position and state your case. Certainly game mechanics
can force results in defiance of what we believe to be true. Such cases
should be examined ruthlessly (but politely). That's hard on the designer,
who ends up feeling pretty vulnerable, but it's necessary for the hobby.
After all, there's always room for a second edition.
Robert M. Wolsky
has boiled down to a battle of 'absolutes', which certainly do nothing
to help things along.
I disagree with the opinion that there is a quantifiable "better" history
to be found in certain rules, or certain levels of simulated command.
The authors would tend to disagree, but having wrote the rules,
that is to be expected. What is not to be expected or, in my opinion,
excused, is labeling all other visions or ideas as 'ahistorical'.
That's my opinion, assail at will.
>If your point is that there are no valid points, then you render this (and
>ANY other discussion on ANY topic) meaningless. It adds absolutely
>nothing to a discussion of the place of history in historical gaming. You
>can do better.
>Fred Stovall
>FX...@AOL.COM
--
Rob Wolsky
Robert M. Wolsky
On Apr 08, 1996 00:00:57 in article <Re: An Open Letter to Jim Getz>,
'rjone...@aol.com (RJones7228)' wrote:
>Yes, history is an important factor in judging historical wargames.
>
>The rub is in the translation to the tabletop. This is where design
>considerations cannot be seperated from the historical question.
'opinionated', regardless of the amount of historical data available to
the author.
>Each designer and gamer makes a subjective judgement about where that line
>occurs. <snip> .... There is the issue, not the history.
And so the debate goes on ....
--
Rob Wolsky
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[In response to Jim's note about confidence intervals, Fred writes:]
Okay, FWIW I'm going to wax analytical for a few moments, and share
the six-point quantum of evidence scale I developed in my research on
experientialist epistemology. (BTW, this was fairly serious research;
I've presented and defended it in several doctoral-level seminars.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q0: (a) there is no evidence consistent with the proffered claim, to
include at least one Significant Negative; and (b) any evidence which
exists is consistent with an alternative claim. ("No reasonable
possibility.")
Q1: (a) there is evidence consistent with the proffered claim; BUT,
(b) there remains at least one Significant Negative for the proffered
claim; AND, (b) there is no evidence which is not also consistent with
the alternative claim(s). ("A reasonable possibility.")
Q2: (a) there is evidence consistent with the proffered claim; AND,
(b) at least one item of evidence is not consistent with the
alternative claim(s); BUT EITHER, (c) there remains at least one
Significant Negative for the proffered claim; OR, (d) the majority of
the evidence is also consistent with the alternative claim(s). ("A
substantial possibility.")
Q3: (a) there is evidence consistent with the proffered claim; AND,
(b) at least one item of evidence is not consistent with the
alternative claim(s); AND EITHER, (c) there are no Significant
Negatives for the proffered claim; OR, (d) the majority of the
evidence is not consistent with the alternative claim(s). ("More
likely than not.")
Q4: (a) there is evidence consistent with the proffered claim; AND,
(b) there are no Significant Negatives for the proffered claim; AND
EITHER, (c) the majority of the evidence is not consistent with the
alternative claim(s); OR, (d) there are Significant Negatives for each
of the alternative claim(s). ("Clear and convincing evidence.")
Q5: (a) there is evidence consistent with the proffered claim; AND,
(b) there are no Significant Negatives for the proffered claim; AND,
(c) there is no evidence consistent with the alternative claim(s);
AND, (d) these include Significant Negatives for each of the
alternative claim(s). ("Beyond a reasonable doubt.")
NOTE: The term "Significant Negative" refers to either: (a) the
absence of evidence which we would reasonably expect to be present if
the proffered claim was reliable; or, (b) the presence of evidence
which we would reasonably expect to be absent if the proffered claim
was reliable. A Significant Negative can be cured by an explanatory
claim which can be assessed at the same or higher Q-value as the
proffered claim. (E.g.: if the proffered claim is asserted as Q4,
then any Significant Negatives must be explained by claims which can
also be assessed as Q4 or higher.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, where would we place most "historical facts" on this scale? I'd
suggest that the vast majority are no higher than a Q3 ("more likely
than not"). Worse, as we enter the level of detail necessary in a
tabletop model, the quantum of evidence slips still further. Few, if
any, of the "historical facts" most essential to a tabletop model are
greater than Q2 ("substantial possibilities"), and many are merely Q1
("reasonable possibilities"). I can think of *no* "historical fact"
which is significant from a designer's perspective and which I would
assess at Q5 ("beyond a reasonable doubt"), or even Q4 ("clear and
convincing evidence").
Note that I'm *not* saying the evidence is irrelevant. I'm saying the
evidence is *inconclusive*. (I've said this in several notes over the
past 48 hours, because it's become apparent that some folks think I'm
arguing for a nihilistic approach to history.)
Some have argued that it's unreasonable of me to demand a Q5, when
such evidence is unavailable. Fine. Don't claim your Q2 to be a Q5,
and I won't demand a Q5's worth of evidence. Admit that it's only a
Q2, and that's all I'll ask for as proof.
It's kinda like the kid who goes into the candy store and asks for a
bag of gumballs. The kid hands over $5 in play money, and the cashier
says "I'm sorry son, but that's just play money." The mom tells the
cashier that he's interfering with her son's imaginative game by
demanding real money. "Besides," she asks, "you can't expect a boy
his age to have *real* money, can you?" Whereupon the cashier pulls a
handfull of dust bunnies from beneath the counter and says "If he'll
accept these as play gumballs, I'll accept his play money."
If y'all want us to treat your historical analyses as hard facts (get
real gumballs), then you'd better be able to prove them beyond a
reasonable doubt (have real money). If you're willing to accept that
reasonable people may reasonably disagree with you (play gumballs),
then I'll accept a lesser quantum of evidence (play money).
Cris
"Every mighty oak was once a nut that stood its ground."
-- Anonymous
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[CB writes:]
I'll give it a shot. It's a bit complicated, because there are three
issues involved. Two are at the surface, and provide the specific
context of the discussion. The third issue is one of policy, and is
the fire which fuels the debate. At the surface:
* Matt (and others) are advocating what I call "detail-realism,"
where we measure the historical quality of a rules set by the degree
to which it gets the details right. Matt has suggested that we can
discuss which rules sets are "more realistic (historically accurate),"
where accuracy is "an accretion of details."
* Jim and I (and others) are advocating what I call "role-realism,"
where we measure the historical quality of a rules set by whether the
overall flow of events gives the player the feeling that he/she has
stepped into an historical commander's role. I have suggested that we
can discuss which rules sets are "historically reasonable -- whether
the player is faced with challenges and opportunities appropriate to
the era and level of command, and whether the outcomes of decisions
are generally consistent with similar historical situations."
* As a predicate issue, Jim and I (and others) have argued that it's
all but impossible to use Matt's detail-realism standard, because we
can't be that certain of the historical details. We argue that the
historical accounts are fraught with bias, omissions, misinformation,
disinformation, political and doctrinal dogma, and the like. I have
cited specific issues -- fundamental to game design -- upon which one
can make well-reasoned, well-researched arguments to support contra-
dictory and mutually exclusive conclusions, or where the historical
data are so varied that no uniform conclusion will be adequate.
* Matt (and others) have suggested that Jim and I (and others) are
setting too high a standard for historical accuracy, and that we *can*
be certain enough of the details to make conclusive arguments as to
whether a rules set "accurately" represents those details.
Thus, at the surface are debate over what might be termed an "inside-
out" (detail-realism) vs. "outside-in" (role-realism) approach to the
historical evaluation of tabletop models, and over whether we can have
sufficient historical certainty to use the detail-realism model. But
this is the *surface* debate; the fire something else altogether:
* Matt (and others) have opined that "games" (which sacrifice histo-
rical accuracy in the interest of playability and fun) undermine the
hobby. Indeed, Matt has suggested "bad faith" on the part of those
who claim the term "historical" when they don't attempt to capture the
details of history.
* Jim and I (and others) have rebelled against such an authoritative
attitude in a hobby. I've argued that -- since reasonable people may
reasonably disagree as to the history itself -- it is entirely likely
that two gamers may disagree as to which of the models is the better
presentation of history. Such disagreements do not give rise to the
inference that one of those gamers (the one with whom you disagree) is
ignorant of, or not interested in, history.
I suggest that the policy issue will not be resolved in this, or any
other, newsgroup debate. For this reflects an ongoing *societal*
debate which appears in our political, academic, and social discourse
on a regular basis: conservative criticisms of perspectivism, con-
structivism, experientialism, postmodernism, and other meta-analyses
which, in turn, criticise conservative authority. It is the never-
ending tension between order (we ought to acknowledge which games are
better historical models) and liberty (each gamer/designer has his/her
own ideas about history, and will choose/design games which reflect
his/her ideas).
So that's the debate, as *I* see it, in a nutshell.
Engcyb0
you are right in that it is a debate that will never be resolved.
There are some general things I believe all people will agree upon:
1. Some people are very good at analysing historical data and drawing out
the necessary details.
2. Some people are very good at designing good game systems.
3. Some people are very bad at analysing history.
4. Some people are very bad at designing games.
5. Many people are somewhere in between.
6. ALL OF US respond defensively to criticism at one time or another.
Therefore, it is ineveitable that there will be individuals whose
historical analysis and game mechanics are in fact better and more
realistic (but not necessarily detailed) than those of others. The
problem is that there are plenty of us out there who will never agree with
it (and are not necessarily qualified to know). It really is a Pandora's
box.
Now for the disclaimer. I did not say that I am better than anyone else
in any way, shape, or form.
Now I will probably have launched a storm of criticism.
Consider the following:
1. If we know that muskets can only shoot 400 yards and a game allows
them to shoot 1,700 yards, is the game accurate?
2. If we know that cavalry cannot move faster than 30 MPH and a game lets
them move 100MPH, is the game accurate?
It would be difficult to convince me that a game that does either one of
these things is accurate at least in that particular respect. And therein
lies the rub: It is really necessary to evaluate a rule set as a whole,
to understand why it works the way it does BEFORE condeming it. As I have
read in here at least once, just because most people believe something
does not make it the truth.
Let me ask a potentially enlighting question:
How fast can a Napoleonicinfantry square move?
What does everyone think?
CB
engcyb0
Engcyb0
cris has stated as the actual argument?
CB
engcyb0
Engcyb0
Can we all agree on one thread to post in for this discussion? Please
please?
I am getting confused trying to follow it through so many other threads.
May I propose starting a new thread and posting everything from the four
threads in question there?
CB
engcyb0
Frank Copeland
: Let me ask a potentially enlighting question:
:
: How fast can a Napoleonicinfantry square move?
:
: What does everyone think?
I think the question is incomplete. It should be: How fast can a Napoleonic
infantry square move, and still remain an effective defence against
cavalry? The answer is: it depends on how well trained the infantry is.
Well-drilled troops, in good order, should be able to move in square as
fast as in line, and possibly as fast as in column. I know of several
examples of this occurring. A unit of raw conscripts should be pretty well
immobile, but they should be immobile in line as well.
Frank Copeland
--
MODULE Sig;
(* $Author: Frank Copeland <f...@wossname.apana.org.au> $ *)
IMPORT StdDisclaimer, CleverQuote, AdvocateOberon;
END Sig.
Phillip S. Myers
: Consider the following:
: 1. If we know that muskets can only shoot 400 yards and a game allows
: them to shoot 1,700 yards, is the game accurate?
: 2. If we know that cavalry cannot move faster than 30 MPH and a game lets
: them move 100MPH, is the game accurate?
: It would be difficult to convince me that a game that does either one of
: these things is accurate at least in that particular respect. And therein
: lies the rub: It is really necessary to evaluate a rule set as a whole,
: to understand why it works the way it does BEFORE condeming it. As I have
: read in here at least once, just because most people believe something
: does not make it the truth.
However, it is not necessarily inaccurate if it speeds or ranges
are lower than the theoretical maximum, that plays into the author's
interpretation of how close troops came to optimum performance. It is
useful for an author to know the theoretical maximum performance, so
that the relationships of different things bear resemblance to
reality.
: Let me ask a potentially enlighting question:
: How fast can a Napoleonicinfantry square move?
: What does everyone think?
I remember an article on that in the last EE&L (or its
replacement, Napoleon) on the speed of infantry squares, and the
argument (and fairly convincing) is that it would move the same speed
as any other infantry formation (all the men face in the direction the
square is to move) it will accordion out a little as space is
necessary for depth of packs and such. For the amount of time
infantry was moving, it would have moved at the same rate as any other
formation (pas accelere, pas ordinaire, etc), but one could argue that
the line had to stop to dress ranks more often, and perhaps the square
as well, or it took some time to close the square up solidly after
moving. (not the answer you were expecting, I presume?)
Phil
Robert Rodgers
: I remember an article on that in the last EE&L (or its
: replacement, Napoleon) on the speed of infantry squares, and the
: argument (and fairly convincing) is that it would move the same speed
: as any other infantry formation (all the men face in the direction the
: square is to move) it will accordion out a little as space is
: necessary for depth of packs and such. For the amount of time
: infantry was moving, it would have moved at the same rate as any other
: formation (pas accelere, pas ordinaire, etc), but one could argue that
: the line had to stop to dress ranks more often, and perhaps the square
: as well, or it took some time to close the square up solidly after
: moving. (not the answer you were expecting, I presume?)
I have found similar information regarding cavalry movement rates. I have
gone through numerous drill manuals of the Nap period for the Prussian
and French armies. Most drills were designed so that a cavalry unit
changed formation, facing, etc while on the move without losing speed.
Most rule sets require players to sacrifice a portion (or all) of his
move if he wants to do one of these.
Also, Cav was specifically drilled to wheel on movable pivots. So, the
"guided torpedo" effect may be a viable tactic.
I think its interesting that many of the things we take for granted in
games aren't really based on solid foundations. They seem logical until
you really investigate them.
This is an interesting topic of discussion and I hope others have noticed
some commonly accepted game mechanics that "aint necessarily so!".
Bob
Jim Getz
: I have found similar information regarding cavalry movement rates. I have
: gone through numerous drill manuals of the Nap period for the Prussian
: and French armies. Most drills were designed so that a cavalry unit
: changed formation, facing, etc while on the move without losing speed.
: Most rule sets require players to sacrifice a portion (or all) of his
: move if he wants to do one of these.
: Also, Cav was specifically drilled to wheel on movable pivots. So, the
: "guided torpedo" effect may be a viable tactic.
: I think its interesting that many of the things we take for granted in
: games aren't really based on solid foundations. They seem logical until
: you really investigate them.
: This is an interesting topic of discussion and I hope others have noticed
: some commonly accepted game mechanics that "aint necessarily so!".
: Bob
Well made points! A very interesting question is where we are doing our
learning and where we are applying our learning. Do we learn from history
and apply to gaming or learn from gaming and apply to history. I think
there is a lttle of both going on which is the way it should be, as long
as we understand the margin of error and don't try to make the real world
dance to the gaming world's tune.
Specifically relating to your points is also the uncertainty concerning
what was done by formations in the real world that never made the drill
books and what factors beyond the basic quantitative stuff influenced the
performance of the formation in the field. Movement rates are very sterile
design data. How do you also factor in intelligence, initiative,
visibility, fatigue, fear, etc to produce an actual movement on the table?
This is the crux of the design question. Taking the little amount of
assumedly factual data combining it with large amounts of rationalization,
assumption, and opinion to produce a "realistic" mechanic.
Jim
Engcyb0
of the formation if they move too fast. But what do most wargamers think
about this? do they agree or disagree? I would bet that most would not
believe it. And the majority is not necessarily correct.
CB
engcyb0
Tim Marshall
> Yes, Indeed. A square can move quite normally, but does loose the order
> of the formation if they move too fast. But what do most wargamers think
> about this? do they agree or disagree? I would bet that most would not
> believe it.
You're right on that last point! :)
Interesting, but having been a "real" soldier for ten years, I do find
this hard to accept. It is difficult enough to keep a line advancing on
a paved parade square in good order... :)
What's your source for this? I am not a horse and musket era gamer, BTW,
the above was just a gut reaction based on my own years of experience
with close order drill - we did not march in squares and I cringe at the
thought of trying to!
Tim
(
Memorial University _________%^\
of Newfoundland /| *_\ "Ignorance is wilful"
St. John's, NF / |\_______/ - Bill Watterson
Canada || ||
David G. Bell
tmar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca "Tim Marshall" writes:
> On 18 Apr 1996, Engcyb0 wrote:
>
> > Yes, Indeed. A square can move quite normally, but does loose the order
> > of the formation if they move too fast. But what do most wargamers think
> > about this? do they agree or disagree? I would bet that most would not
> > believe it.
>
> You're right on that last point! :)
>
> Interesting, but having been a "real" soldier for ten years, I do find
> this hard to accept. It is difficult enough to keep a line advancing on
> a paved parade square in good order... :)
>
> What's your source for this? I am not a horse and musket era gamer, BTW,
> the above was just a gut reaction based on my own years of experience
> with close order drill - we did not march in squares and I cringe at the
> thought of trying to!
The instances I can think of are in various 'colonial' wars, such as the
Sudan, where the idea was to move, while protecting the baggage. Not
battalion squares, and still a time when line formations were _used in
combat_.
But yes, you're right about the problems. And a unit wouldn't dare move
while under clear threat of attack. Not if the Fuzzy-Wuzzies were
coming at them.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..