Realism and Pretence
Phil Dutre
Hi folks,
With all these threads in the ng about realism vs playability vs
Casablanca vs Piquet vs 'I just wanno blow things up' vs ....,
I thought it was fun just to look to some of my old
books on wargaming (which I bought 2nd hand, because I'm
not that old that I would have been able to buy them brand
new, but I digress .... )
In "Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun", written by Paddy Griffith,
and published in 1980, on page 9, there is a section titled
'Realism & Pretence', which I think is relevant for the
discussions so far. Especially the 4th paragraph!
--- start quote ---
There are three main areas in which it is practical to hope
for realism in wargames. These are:
- Aesthetic: We can use finely detailed model soldiers and scenery
to make a sort of animated miniature tableau of the scene. This in
itself can sometimes bring the event vividly to life and four of the
games in this book are based upon it.
- Tactical: We can find out the vital statistics of regimental
fighting during the napoleonic period, and make sure that the
rules of our game are tactically realistic. In other words we
will make our model regiments march, shoot and fight according
to the same limitations and probabilities as were really imposed
upon Napoleonic regiments. To do this we will need to know some
accurate details of Napoleonic tactics, and then to use various wargame
techniques to fit them into a workable set of rules.
- Command and Control: It is all very well knowing how Napoleonic
regiments operated; but this is really only half the story. In the
more advanced games in this book we will also try to develop rules
for the other half: the ways Napoleonic commanders operated. Regimental
action was certainly an important instrument by which commanders
could win victories, but it was by no means the only one. Commanders
also had to master a whole set of techniques for collecting
intelligence, issueing orders and controlling the battle. If we can
make a game which simulates these things, and forces us to make
the same types of decisions as Napoleonic commanders would really have
to make, then we will have gone a long way towards imagining ourselves
in their shoes. We will no longer simply be chess players sitting
over our tables and moving pieces when and where we wish. Instead,
we will be commanders in battle who have to cope with misleading
information, reluctant subordinates, couriers who get lost, and a host
of other difficulties before we can get our pieces in motion at all.
The realism of our rules - the sense that we are really taking the part
of a Napoleonic commander - will be easier to achieve if we read novels,
biographies, and history books about the period. The more we know about
our subject, the more we will be able to look at it in the right
perspective, and imagine ourselves in the middle of it all. It is for
this reason that I have included a short book list for each game.
It is also extremely important to prevent our rules from becoming
over-complex, thus sacrificing playability to realism. Napoleonic
commanders did not have to be mathematical wizards to win their
wars, nor did barrack-room lawyers often rise to high command. We
must therefore steer well clear of pedantry, petty detail, and
rule-mongering in our games and concentrate firmly upon general
command decision-making.
Many wargamers fail to achieve the right balance in this all, and
either become obsessed with minor detailsand mental arithmetic in the
name of realism, or go to the opposite extreme, and reject any claim
to realism at all, in the name of playability. Neither of these
approaches is correct, since it is perfectly possble to devise games
which are both realistic and playable. To do this, however, you must
be clear about just what level of realism you are after; through
exactly whose eyes you are trying to look at the battle.
The games in this book have varying standards of realism and
playability, but they all try to be very clear about just what
is being simulated, and precisely whom the player is supposed
to be. In this way they attempt to combine the two elements of
fun and historical satisfaction; although at the end of the day the
reader will of course only get pleasure from them in proportion to
the time and energy he himself puts in.
--- end quote ---
The games decsribed in the book vary from skirmish games all
the way up to the 'generalship' game, where players act
as the Chief commander of a complete army. The interesting
part is, that players do not move miniatures (the umpire does),
but map out the daily schedule of the C-in-C (rest, move,
inspect troops, write orders, intelligence, write home, ...)
and also do the actual order-writing. It is more akin to map-
kriegsspiel, but with the added factor of managing the 24-hour period
of a real C-in-C every turn.
Phil
--
=======================================================================
Philip Dutre Program of Computer Graphics Cornell University
ph...@graphics.cornell.edu http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~phil/
=======================================================================
Matt DLM
I agree with Paddy Griffith nearly 100%.
Matt DeLaMater
TYGHOCK
>and published in 1980, on page 9, there is a section titled
>'Realism & Pretence', which I think is relevant for the
>discussions so far.
Excellent quote, Phil.
- TYGHOCK
If you're not part of the Conspiracy, you're part of the problem.
Pete Martin
what level of command is being simulated and strive to keep the rules with
that level of command in mind. If you are commanding a corps in a game (for
example), there shouldn't be detailed rules on battalions and squads. Why?
Because if we are realistically simulating this level of command, a corps
commander would not have that degree of "micromanaging" and effectively
command his corps as well. Of course, some allowances must be made to make
the game interesting. Most game designers agree that if the gamer has to
concern himself with more than two levels of command, it is probably a bad
design (a few exceptions noted). If we are put it the mindset of the command
level of the game and are presented with the same decisions at this level of
command, then the game has achieved "realism", in my mind.
Pete
Matt DLM
concern himself with more than two levels of command, it is probably a bad
design (a few exceptions noted).>>
Count me as one of the exceptions. Way too many examples of Napoleonic Army and
Corps commanders meddling at the tactical battalion level.
Agree with the rest of your fine comments though.
Matt DeLaMater
rjon...@rmi.net
>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>With all these threads in the ng about realism vs playability vs
>Casablanca vs Piquet vs 'I just wanno blow things up' vs ....,
>I thought it was fun just to look to some of my old
>books on wargaming (which I bought 2nd hand, because I'm
>not that old that I would have been able to buy them brand
>new, but I digress .... )
>
>In "Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun", written by Paddy Griffith,
>and published in 1980, on page 9, there is a section titled
>'Realism & Pretence', which I think is relevant for the
>discussions so far. Especially the 4th paragraph!
>
>--- start quote ---
>There are three main areas in which it is practical to hope
>for realism in wargames. These are:
<<snip of the body of the text>>
Within 6-8 years of writing this, Paddy Griffith left miniature wargaming, and
developed Megagaming. His stated reason(to me) was that he felt a miniature
game could not really be 'realistic' and that he thought other approaches might
be more fruitful-namely Megagaming.
I think, on the whole, I would agree with his preface that you quote. From the
looks of most US conventions I attend, the aesthetic is very dodgy, though this
might be a function of the huge distance gamers have traveled and the resultant
limitations on the elegance of the terrain-if not the figures. Still too many
felt or chalk rivers and 'area-painted' figures!
The tactical elements are generally broadly agreed upon between all designers-no
one is going to make the 1806 Prussians the equal of the French, 12 lbrs. will
shoot farther with somewhat greater effect than 6 or 8s, broad mimicry of
formations, and general organizational issues, are not much in contest! If
anything, because this area has somewhat more 'data' than the others(even if
limited and suspect in its 'science') Tac/Tech has possibly been weighted too
heavily in many designs. This is particularly true of WWII games of the "Tank
and Clank" school.
It's the last one; Command and Control, that, by definition, will have more game
mechanic impact than the preceding two, where we find the most disagreement,
and, quite frankly, the area where I believe Paddy's disillusionment with
miniatures resided.
Wargamers will worry out the last detail of organization, dwell incessantly on
OBs(as if they were a engraved stone constant rather than a variable!), get the
terrain "just so", have very accurate uniforms, and then allow helicopter views,
absolute hands-on control, perfectly 'fair' opportunity, rigid and predictable
move sequences, and perfect intelligence of the enemy, as if these were just
'unimportant' factors!
Let's just say that 'realism' in uniforms and technology parameters is a lot
easier to achieve than in the area of Command and Control-this topic is the
"ghost" in the machine of wargame design, and the area of most divergence
between rule sets.
Is it any surprise that when some rules just deny the existence of these
factors; others abstract them into game mechanics, and yet others have sixteen
tables and written orders to determine the status of a unit down to whether the
knapsacks are properly packed, that most arguments would focus on these issues?
It is even more contentious when this very area has little or no 'hard', or even
reliable, data!
The Command and Control factor in a wargame design is the arena of the creative
writer/artist, not some scientific dissertation! It is about sensitivities to
human nature(including the gamers'!), more than citations from historical texts.
BJ
COL Bill Gray
on faculty, also considered Command-Control a very important, if not the
most important, factor of success during the Napoleonic period (other
periods as well).
Bill Gray
Matt DLM <mat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990922170026...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Pete Martin
this. If a Corps Commander really wants to meddle with tactical battalion
level, let him. However, he is penalized because he isn't devoting enough
attention to "the big picture" that is his responsibility. How you could
simulate this would be another matter. I do believe that there are easier
ways of handling command and control without the level of micro-management
that I spoke of. At least so that an average game group could complete a
battle in a reasonable amount of time.
Pete
Patrick Carroll
>on
>OBs(as if they were a engraved stone constant rather than a variable!), get
>the
>terrain "just so", have very accurate uniforms, and then allow helicopter
>views,
>absolute hands-on control, perfectly 'fair' opportunity, rigid and
>predictable
>move sequences, and perfect intelligence of the enemy, as if these were just
>'unimportant' factors!
They *can* be unimportant factors for a wargamer. Who says every wargamer
wants to be forced vicariously into a historical commander's shoes, where he
can only see a confused, vision-slit glimpse of the battle and is only able to
issue orders and keep his fingers crossed in the hope that the orders will be
carried out?
Some of us still *like* the "helicopter view" and complete control over our
game pieces, even though we know it flies in the face of how command-control
works in real battles. Even knowing that, we can still shrug and dismiss it as
an unimportant factor. Not unimportant in real battle; just unimportant in our
games--because we've grown to like a certain kind of game.
A minority of chess players have experimented with kriegspiel (umpired chess),
and some of them probably think it somehow simulates something like
command-control. But most chess players still like regular chess.
I think it's the same with many wargamers, though in the past several years,
the command-heavy type of wargame has made some big inroads.
What inroads that have been made, however, are so questionable as simulations
that they're probably best regarded as aesthetic features. As you say,