How can a wargame be realistic?

[TacticalPainter]

Some thoughts and reflections on the nature of 'realism' in table top wargames after many decades of gaming both in miniature and with board games. I think we all have strong opinions on this so I've no doubt others will differ in their levels of agreement with my thoughts, but this is a discussion that comes up regularly in clubs and on forums so here's my two cents worth. The full article is here https://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com/2023/07/how-can-wargame-be-realistic.html

[jon_1066]

Interesting article.

You certainly make a good case for dice to represent events we don’t want to simulate in detail given we can have a good idea of the odds.

For me “realism” comes down to does the game reflect the actual tactics of the age and how much are you thinking in game terms compared to battlefield terms.

Eg do period tactics give period results?  Eg if I’ve formed my Austrian infantry into battalion masses and they have almost no chance of standing against cavalry then that game is unrealistic.

If I have to save three tokens to be able to form that formation instead of being able to have more corps artillery fire then that is unrealistic to me.  It’s taking me out of battlefield decisions and into game decisions.  This is one reasons I’m less keen on lots of chrome.  Most of those special rules or combo mechanics are purely game driven.  eg battleboards in Saga or saving flags in Sharpe Practice or Infamy.  In some ways they are introducing decision points that may create a good game but these are decision points that do not exist in a real chain of command.

[Harry Faversham]

Wargaming realistic? Daftest question I've ever heard, only a wargamer could come up with such drivel!
Does playing Monopoly give a good insight into the world of high finance?Does the CID (coppers in distress) learn detecting things from playing Cluedo?
A wise man once said 'there's no such thing as a daft question'.

'Are wargames realistic?'

Now, that's a daft question!

 

[Rickf]

I think there's far too much made of the 'well the military use wargaming' We do, but not in the way most wargamers know it. A particular problem will be presented to a commander and he may well say 'let's wargame it'  We don't get out some well painted 28mm figures and a copy of CoC. It generally involves sitting round a map or model of the ground and using lots of 'what if's 'so what' 'how would' type questions to find the most likely courses of enemy action and our responses. A bit like the muggers rules idea.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

good essay.

I believe the only real breakdown in accuracy/realism in most of table top games comes from lack of true fog of war with our accurate helicopter views of the terrain and the positions of all units both enemy and friendly.  Real battlefield commanders rarely had that level of precise knowledge even of their own forces.  This coupled with immediate command control annd constant movement rates and our games are closer to chess than to real battlefields.  Dice rolls for  movement/command , logistics, random events, and spotting rules with lots of hidden units do much to make a game more of a simulation, but still many prefer a more “cinematic” game and don’t care for all the overhead necessary for all that, and really enjoy the empowered godlike aspects of instantaneous command control. Some are just happy tossing dice without much more nuance in maneuvers than a frontal assault. Horses for courses.

In war, the objectives are simple to define, but even the simple is very difficult to achieve.  Addressing “Friction” is what makes war an art form.

[jon_1066]

Wargaming realistic? Daftest question I've ever heard, only a wargamer could come up with such drivel!
Does playing Monopoly give a good insight into the world of high finance?Does the CID (coppers in distress) learn detecting things from playing Cluedo?
A wise man once said 'there's no such thing as a daft question'.

'Are wargames realistic?'

Now, that's a daft question!

 

Did you actually read the article?

Thought not since he addresses this in the very first part and then moves onto considering the accuracy of a wargame as opposed to its realism since as you point out a wargame can never be realistic (since no one is getting killed.)

[jon_1066]

I think there's far too much made of the 'well the military use wargaming' We do, but not in the way most wargamers know it. A particular problem will be presented to a commander and he may well say 'let's wargame it'  We don't get out some well painted 28mm figures and a copy of CoC. It generally involves sitting round a map or model of the ground and using lots of 'what if's 'so what' 'how would' type questions to find the most likely courses of enemy action and our responses. A bit like the muggers rules idea.

This was a classic real world use of wargaming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Approaches_Tactical_Unit

[Easy E]

@Harry - Monopoly does give a good indication of the Real Estate market.  Everyone loses except the bank! 


An interesting read.  I tend to think of a game somewhere in a triangle between three points.  Those points are Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist.  The closer you go to one edge, the further you get from the others.  Individual parts of the game may lean more one direction than the other. 

Realism (or simulation) is only relevant if it contributes to the overall goal of the game, Having Fun.  Of course, where the magical "Fun" exists within this triangle I created is open to interpretation. However, if ones fun leans more towards Simulationist you lose fun when a game leans Gamist; and vice verse.

There is no right formula for the perfect amount of the three points.  It varies widely by player and designer intent.   

[Harry Faversham]

Did you actually read the article?

Good God no, don't talk like a soft lad.
I'm 66, life's too short for reading long such winded drivel. Don't pontificate, get yer toy sowjers out, and just play with 'em!

 

[Pattus Magnus]

Hey, don’t knock reading long winded drivel and pontificating about it, that’s my day job. It pays the bills for acquisition and maintenance of the toy soldiers!

As far as realism in recreational wargames goes, I think Easy E’s 3-point model captures the overall picture well (could also look at it as a 3-circle Venn diagram, with sub-types in the overlap between circles). I personally tend toward being somewhere between the Narrativist and Simulationist types. The criteria are interlinked on some level- the data that simulations are drawn on tend to be from narratives of one sort or another (historical reports, interpretations of archaeological materials, fictional canons, etc), and then there needs to be a set of game mechanics to organize the pieces and interaction between players.

Realism in wargames may sit at the intersection of the 3 points, but that’s hard to reach due to human factors - no set of players will bring the same set of knowledge and background assumptions to the table about which elements are the most important ones to focus on. A group of gaming friends that have compatible assumptions and get along well enough to adjust to each other are likely to have good games, but it is an open question what place Realism has.

 

[FifteensAway]

How can a war-game be realistic?

It can't, on any level.  It is a game, pure and simple.  Toy soldiers, toy terrain, toy buildings.  And, no, I did not read the 'article' though I glanced at it.  Like Harry, life is too short.

Who wants the bile in your throat, the horrible smells in your nostrils, the gut wrenching fear, seeing your best friend blown to unrecognizable pieces, or a life long trauma from the experience?  Certainly not I.

Yeah, sure, we can do our best to recreate a historical battle using terrain and orders of battle, done it many times, and - always - five minutes into the game the history is gone and the 'gaming' is on.  But sometimes the game has a 'historical' result, more or less.  And that is cool - but it is never like the real battle, just the result is similar in interpretation.

I land here and this is all I need to know, "Wargaming is grown men, mostly, playing with toy soldiers.  And having too good a time to care what others think."  I long ago got over trying to take it seriously.  But the 'take it serious' folk are still popping up here and there.

If I want history, I read a book.  A game is supposed to be fun.

Rules should be just enough to avoid real bloody noses and not much more.  Simpler rules, funner games.

Fun folks.  That is supposed to be the goal.

[Easy E]

Considering historians still are not sure how ancient battles were even fought, it makes realism really hard for Ancient games! 

 

[Belligerentparrot]

I agree with the folks above for whom fun is the factor that determines how much realism matters, but it has its limits.

An example:
In my favourite ruleset (2nd ed Space Marine, if you're wondering) there are at least two very unrealistic rules. One is that  shooting at the largest by far machines on the battlefield requires an extra test to see if you hit. I never play this rule, even though the mechanism is fun (and a hang-over from an earlier game where the mechanism made sense because there were no small targets). Despite the fun, I find it unplayably silly for a shot that would hit anything small to somehow miss a target bigger than a large building.

The same ruleset gives invulnerable saves to certain characters. That is also silly: a large bore artillery shell is realistically going to pulverise whoever it lands on, hero or lowly private. But the miraculous escape of the hero leading a charmed life adds fun to the story, so I don't mind the rule.

[ithoriel]

Rules should be just enough to avoid real bloody noses and not much more.  Simpler rules, funner games.

If that works for you then more power to your elbow but simple does not always equal better for me. I may not want to be up to my knees in mud and blood but I'd like my miniatures to react as if they were.

Each to their own, however.

[TacticalPainter]

How can a war-game be realistic?

It can't, on any level.  It is a game, pure and simple.  Toy soldiers, toy terrain, toy buildings.  And, no, I did not read the 'article' though I glanced at it.  Like Harry, life is too short.

Who wants the bile in your throat, the horrible smells in your nostrils, the gut wrenching fear, seeing your best friend blown to unrecognizable pieces, or a life long trauma from the experience?  Certainly not I.

Yeah, sure, we can do our best to recreate a historical battle using terrain and orders of battle, done it many times, and - always - five minutes into the game the history is gone and the 'gaming' is on.  But sometimes the game has a 'historical' result, more or less.  And that is cool - but it is never like the real battle, just the result is similar in interpretation.

I land here and this is all I need to know, "Wargaming is grown men, mostly, playing with toy soldiers.  And having too good a time to care what others think."  I long ago got over trying to take it seriously.  But the 'take it serious' folk are still popping up here and there.

If I want history, I read a book.  A game is supposed to be fun.

Rules should be just enough to avoid real bloody noses and not much more.  Simpler rules, funner games.

Fun folks.  That is supposed to be the goal.

That’s just your opinion. It’s totally valid, but that still makes it only your opinion including your rather narrow and subjective definition of ‘fun’.