|
Realism and Gaming
A long, long time ago I was a member of the WNYWA (Western NY Wargamers Association) and the UBSG (University of Buffalo Simulations Group) and there was a glaring difference between these two organizations.
The WNYWA was a group of guys that loved to play wargames, paint minis, build terrain, and play campaigns. Often the rules they used amounted to old Donald Featherstone ?knock offs?, but they really didn?t care as long as they could get together, play with their minis, and have some fun. I remember fondly those regular Friday night games with a ten to twelve foot long table packed with minis, jokes flying around the table, tons of dice bouncing around, and the table surface hot with action. In over ten years with the organization I never heard an argument about rules, realism, or bad dice rolls, but there sure were a lot of good jokes and laughs. Now as an organization the old WNYWA no longer exists, but you know most of those guys still get together every Friday to play games, still use simple uncomplicated rules, and are still having a real good time. The funny thing is 3/4 of those guys are combat veterans playing at being generals.
The UBSG was a group of intellectuals that believed that war could be accurately transferred to the table top/hex map. Within the group members were issued ?pins of status? so they could proudly display their rated skill within the organization. The games/rules used were the most up to date available and their realism a constant subject for debate. The first three Saturdays of the month were devoted to ?casual gaming? with members arranging before hand, or on the spot, but almost always they were one on one affairs. The last Saturday of the month was devoted to tournament play, and it was the day when only sanctioned games were played, and players faced off so they could earn more points toward getting the next higher ranking ?status pin? to wear. I lasted less then six months, and never ?earned? the first ranked pin (The real truth was I never even tried to because I felt the entire concept was just plain silly). You not a single member of that organization ever spent a second in any military uniform. The UBSG lasted all of three years and I don?t recall ever seeing any of them playing as a group again.
WNYWA and the UBSG and Ancient Warfare
The WNYWA used Donald Featherstones ancients rules for a while and then moved up to a Featherstone ?knock off? that was a bit more detailed but essentially the same game system. Using these rules they fought numerous real and fictitious campaigns, and countless mega battles, with four to eight guys on a side, all of them to conclusion. The UBSG used the very early version of the WRG Ancients rules and SPIs Phalanx and Dark Ages. They never played any campaigns, never put on any mega-battles, and rarely finished even a single game.
WNYWA and the UBSG and Napoleonic Warfare
The WNYWA used Donald Featherstone?s rules first, and then moved on to using Charles Grants?s rules, and again the Grant rules were a bit more detailed but essentially the same game system. Once again the group played numerous campaigns and mega-battles all again to conclusion. The UBSG used Frappe? and SPIs Grenadier, and the following story should explain how ?well? they worked. I was invited to participate in a four player Napoleonic game using the Frappe? rules. In three hours I?d gotten to move my four battalions twice, and only rolled the dice once when I needed to check a battalions morale for receiving artillery fire (And that single morale check took almost ten minutes to resolve). We never finished the battle, and I got to move my battalions one more time before we had to pack everything up and go home.
The Price Of Simulation
Whenever it was suggested to the members of the UBSG that just maybe it took too long to play a single turn in the ?simulations? they were using, they had a standard response, ?Well that?s the price you pay if you want a realistic game.? For a short time I actually believed this line of bull feathers, and the rule sets and simulation games (SPI) I collected in that short time have long since found a new home in some NY landfill. In truth I could really care less if third man to the left of the color sergeant of the 25th Regiment of the Line has lost the ramrod for his musket thus conferring a -1% shooting penalty on the formations overall firepower. Yes, in the heat of battle musket armed soldiers actually did sometimes forget to remove the ramrod thus hurling the means of reloading the weapon, and a musket ball, at the enemy. And yes if you are attempting to ?simulate? Napoleonic Warfare? then it is probably important to know just how many men have accidentally launched this vital piece of equipment out of the barrel of their weapons. But the real question is do we really need to know this to create a realistic game?
What?s Realism
In it?s simplest form war is the use of maneuver to bring force against an enemy at a point at which an advantage is gained and the enemy is defeated, while at the same time preventing the enemy from doing the same thing to you. Therefore the game must allow player(s) to do the same thing or there isn?t anything even remotely realistic about the game, no matter how detailed and complex the rules themselves may be. If it takes the players two hours to complete a single game turn that itself only represents five minutes of actual time, then the only thing being realistically represented here are the same actions as those that would be carried out by a bank accountant, or a contract lawyer, and not generals.
Real generals only have the five minutes represented by the turn to digest information, determine a course of action, and then issue the proper orders. On the other hand our game ?simulators? here have two hours to do the same thing while the armies themselves are moving with all the speed and vigor of a wounded sloth. At that point any attempt at real maneuver is pointless, and you are better off pulling out your laptop and calculating the odds of plowing through your opponent because he has a good hour plus to see any attempts at maneuver and react to it. About the only real way you could end up being out maneuvered in one of these ?simulations? is if you fell asleep waiting for something the least bit interesting to do.
So for a wargame to reflect the real world it has to function so that a single turn occurs in the same, or less, amount of real time then what is being represented by the game on the table. If it does then the gaming generals have to make the same snap decisions that the real commanders have too, and this allows both sides to actually perform maneuvers.
To do this the game system itself has to be as simple as possible, and yet still retain the flavor of the period of warfare that it represents. Now dice are used to represent the imponderables of war, and the biggest imponderable that is found on every battlefield are the soldiers themselves. This is because the soldiers themselves have the most to lose if something goes wrong, a fact they are all constantly aware of, and this can result in crack troops breaking in situations where green troops have stood their ground and refused to budge. Now there is no doubt that crack troops are going to fight better and react better more often then green troops, but in the end they don?t always, and the game must reflect this.
The ?simulators? believe that every single possible factor must be taken into account to accurately reflect these imponderables. Out comes the page long list of modifiers that, after fifteen minutes of reading down it, adding and subtracting every bit of detail, you have a 30% chance of failure on your 1D100 dice roll. Gamers, on the other hand, pull out their 1D6, look at the formation in question, yup the enemy is within 12?, that?s a minus one so I?ll need a 3+ to pass my morale test. Ten seconds later the game has already moved on to something else interesting.
The real truth is, throughout history it has been impossible to put any kind of percentage possibility on exactly what troops are going to do, much less how they are going to react in any given situation. So the use of a fancy chart and 1D100 isn?t any more, or less, realistic then using a chart with two basic modifiers and rolling a 1D6. Therefore it is completely safe to dispense with the fancy page long chart of modifiers and the 1D100, and still create a realistic game.
The same applies to weapons effects, a fancy chart and 1D100 is not more realistic then a simple chart and rolling 1D6. There once was a WWII ?simulation? game called ?Korn?s Rules?. Just for firing a KP round required that the angle of the incoming round relative to the target vehicle be determined along with the deflection of the barrel the round was fired from, and the angle of the plate armor being struck. Then you had to read down the KP chart to find out the kinetic force of the round and compare it to the modified thickness of the armor plate struck (as determined in the formula followed in the above). Also if any vulnerable locations were on the plate struck, like vision slits for example, a roll was needed to see if they were struck and if yes then the modifier had to be applied to the present armor thickness.
Then the two numbers were compared to determine if a penetration had occurred. Mind you after going through all of this we still haven?t determined what damage has been caused, if any, and how the men inside were effected by the round. Considering you just spent around fifteen minutes determining if the round penetrated or not, we just skipped the ten minute ?To Hit? chart, and that a single turn in Korn?s represents thirty seconds I am at a loss to understand why anyone would find this realistic. A single 1D6 roll to hit, and then a 1D6 for penetration achieves almost the same percentage result the fancy ?simulation? does in 1/100 of the time.
I hope that I have shown that just because a game uses a simple clean system that it isn?t anymore, or less, realistic then a ?simulation? that uses a complex set of variables wrapped around a complex set of rules.
In Conclusion
The truth is Epic-A is a GAME designed to reflect warfare in a fantasy future, so the use of a simple game system is going to be just as realistic as anything complex one could dream up, so why even bother using complex systems. To be sure Epic-A is based on what happens in real war but, as already shown here, there is no need to create complex systems to reflect results when a simple systems achieves the same thing without the complexity.
The core of the Epic-A game system is solid, simple, and rewards players that have a good grasp of operations and tactics. The upcoming army lists should maintain the credo of the first three lists by having a solid exploitable weakness that any enemy can exploit, and the player must protect against. Not to worry when it?s done as this not only gives the army list real character, but any player using good sound tactics will still be rewarded for that good play despite this weakness because of the base sound design of the system in Epic-A.
Now lets have some fun playing a game......
Jaldon
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
|
), aircraft are on and off, that's their move, etc. ?We like some other things from SM1 mostly and a little SM2 and E40K etc. and will "meld" those in, because we think it is fun AND logical. ?We like the Firefight concept, but feel the close combat rules are too much of "like 40K", too detailed for us and we'll modify those, to suit us. ?Some of the weapons ranges are a bit short for us, so that's an easy fix (based on SM1), etc. ?I guess my use of the terms realism, real world experiences and references to AH, SPI etc. were taken the wrong way by some. ?Based on bad experiences, like Jaldon's with what he calls "intellectuals" in his well written piece/rant above. 
I'm no intellectual ! 
