Reply To: Defining Genres of Rule Design

[McLaddie]

One last thought: since gamers never behave historically, can a design be “historic” unless it forces them to do so?

EC:

Never behave historically? A design can be ‘historic’ by providing a representation of the battlefield environment where the decisions were made. If the game environment succeeds, then it will process game play in a ‘historic’ way, with the ‘historic’ consequences for any of the decisions gamers make, whether they are ‘historic’ or not.

In general I think if you really want to design a good simulation, do it on the computer. Hidden movement, no 200 foot general, no knowing the enemy strength down to the second decimal, cantankerous subordinates, simultaneous action – no IGOUGO or move one unit at a time, no “turn phases” – you simply can’t come anywhere near that with miniatures. Heck in a computer game you can have morale ranked from 1-100 if you want…and “charts” can be as complex as needed because the computer does all the work.

Computers have their limits too, which is why the army, business and education don’t do all their simulating with computers. Hidden movement can be done on a game table as well as all those things you mention above.  Computers can portions of a simulation easier for the user and more of it than a player-administrated tabletop game, but easier and more isn’t the only definitions of a good simulation. Good simulations are ones that successfully mimic the parts of combat/history they were designed to simulate. Ease of use and more complexity are great things, but not the defining elements of a simulation.