tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post2461913122899751764..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Reality and Multiple ModelsThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-21911260675111896592014-11-03T05:51:34.859-08:002014-11-03T05:51:34.859-08:00I think there are two approaches here, a top down ...I think there are two approaches here, a top down and a bottom up one. But I think there are other issues as well, such as what level do you want the rules to be about?<br /><br />this seems to me to be an issue, in that most rules make the wargamer successively army, division and unit commander. With PM:SPQR I tried to make sure the wargamer stuck to being, as much as possible, the army commander. <br /><br />But, battles are one off events, and i agree that we can't base a rule set on one incident. But how many incidents makes a good statistical ensemble?The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-85457485224459941522014-11-03T05:48:37.426-08:002014-11-03T05:48:37.426-08:00I think there is such a correlation, yes. The bigg...I think there is such a correlation, yes. The bigger the figure, the more individual the rules, it seems to me. of course, I've not done a scientific investigation (most rules are too expensive for that), so it is just an impression.<br /><br />mind you, most, for example, Samurai games go for individual heroic action. Most reports of Samurai battles indicate the officers were the samurai and the others did most of the fighting (and dying, unless your head was cut off as a trophy).<br /><br />So I guess it comes down to what sort of reality do we wish to portray?The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-66945788682127139692014-11-01T05:04:09.388-07:002014-11-01T05:04:09.388-07:00All very true and it shows some of the difficultie...All very true and it shows some of the difficulties and pitfalls of the bottom of approach. A bit like trying to understand human behaviour by starting at tge cellular level. <br /><br />A few years ago I started trying to approach wargames from a top down approach, starting by trying to recreate typical group behaviour as reported rather than starting by trying to understand the individuals. It has its own pitfalls and does not come naturally, neither does it explain why history unfolded the way it did. However, at least one can compare games to the range of recorded sample events that we chose and we are able to say that game events do or don't but fall within the range of possible recorded events that the game was based on. <br /><br />Obviously a sample of 1 event doesn't allow any variance so makes a poor game so we end up grouping events but the closer the events are, the better. So basing a game just on Zama allows no variance, basing the rules on all of the recorded gives us a range of possible outcomes and some patterns, bading them on 1,000 years starts to look at very generic patterns, blurring the differences between various wars.<br /><br />Different approaches delivering different things that look similar.Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-7561276296876730652014-11-01T04:37:31.476-07:002014-11-01T04:37:31.476-07:00I realise that my focus on the "level" (...I realise that my focus on the "level" (of abstraction; of detail) in the game is getting rather away from the point of your post, but in moments of quiet pondering I sometimes (quietly) ponder whether there is a correlation between the scale of the figures and the rules approach - even subconsciously. I've been re-reading the Horse & Musket period book for "Black Powder", which is great fun (haven't played the game, but the book is fun), and I wonder if there is a correlation between the style of figures and the comfortable level of abstraction. Black Powder is stuffed with fine photographs of detailed (caricature) 28mm figures, each of which obviously has a personality and (if you wish) a personal life story, and it would seem inconsistent to run such a game at too high a level of abstraction. 6mm is different, and card counters are completely different.<br /><br />Just a thought. I found it difficult to imagine someone using 6mm for Black Powder, though I guess it is quite possible. One digression on the subject of Black Powder - painted casualty figures - am I the only person who thinks it is funny to see units marching about trailing strings of dead bodies behind them? Like the tin cans behind the wedding car.MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-9139779569430930772014-11-01T03:31:58.584-07:002014-11-01T03:31:58.584-07:00Thank you.
Yes, of course, we could just throw a ...Thank you.<br /><br />Yes, of course, we could just throw a dice and move on, but then what do we find that is engaging about a wargame. Some people seem to find the arguing part of the reason for wargaming at all (I've never understood that one), but there must be something at a lower level than the abstract that draws us in to spending hours painting, modelling, setting up and playing. I guess the narrative is the thing.<br /><br />Within the narrative most things can be explained, or explained away, either at a game level ('bad dice rolls') or at the action level ('good shooting'). But that is then part of us telling a story about the game, or the game world, or both. And this can get confusing when thy are muddled.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-39880841247855738612014-11-01T02:39:26.662-07:002014-11-01T02:39:26.662-07:00A friend and I had a joke format for a super-grand...A friend and I had a joke format for a super-grand-tactical level wargame. You spend about 2 hours setting up the armies, in considerable detail, then you say something along the lines of "red army has better chance of success, but not by much" (even better, you get an umpire to say this), then roll a die - 3 or better and red wins. Then spend 2 hours discussing in considerable detail why the great battle went the way it did. The heart of our joke was that we reckoned this concentrated on the enjoyable bits of the game, and usefully "abstracted" all the clunky bits of the rules which didn't actually work all that well, and which gave rise to all the argument and bad feeling.<br /><br />Board games do this all the time - one die roll and a big army counter is removed - battle over - campaign moves on. On numerous occasions in board games I have regretted the lack of visibility of these actions - often strategically crucial actions - but the need to keep the game moving means we have to sacrifice a lot of detail. At the other end of the spectrum, I have also found, over the years, that the more detailed a set of rules is, the more "realistic" the grip on the blow-by-blow narrative, the sillier and more obviously artificial the game becomes; the closer we study the action under a microscope (however worthy or scientific our intention), the more apparent is the clumsiness of the imitation.<br /><br />I have little experience of skirmishes - which represent a different activity altogether - but my preference for big, somewhat abstract games in which you can see the movement and the development (rather than argue about morale bonuses) has a lot to do with this. As you correctly state here, the more we try to subdivide the models (and submodels?) the more we offend against the fact that they are not really independent at all, and the more distortion we introduce. The 3+ die roll giving victory to red is not a lot of fun, but it is possibly less daft than some of the exceptionally clever things we have tried to do instead!<br /><br />Excellent post, as ever - thanks.MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.com