Home Forums Horse and Musket Napoleonic The Intersection of Simulation and Beer & Pretzels

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7063
    Avatar photoMcLaddie
    Participant

    Sorry, this has degenerated into a bit of a rant, but my point is that if designing a set of rules, allow them to be defensible to critics if you make necessary shortcuts or decide not to cover that last percentile of possibilities…

     

    Nothing to apologize for.  It does amaze me that there are those absurdly high expectations floating around out there, as if 100% of everything historical could be contained in a single wargame design.    So, in that vein, how do you see designers accomplishing this?:

    if designing a set of rules, allow them to be defensible to critics if you make necessary shortcuts or decide not to cover that last percentile of possibilities…

    And just to keep it on track with the thread, being able to do that could be one intersection between simulation and Beer & Pretzels.

    #7074
    Avatar photogrizzlymc
    Participant

    I think that perhaps part of the B&P ethos is that the odd odd result is more acceptable than in “serious” rules for “serious” wargamers.

    #7078
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    I think that perhaps part of the B&P ethos is that the odd odd result is more acceptable than in “serious” rules for “serious” wargamers.

     

    I’m not a ‘serious’ wargamer by any means, but BP is just too bloody random for me. If I buy a set of rules, I want a set of rules. Not a flippin’ toolkit.

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7093
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    part of the B&P ethos

    but BP is just too bloody random for me

    I concur personally but I think he was referring to B&P as “beer and pretzels” not BP, aka Black Powder.

    #7104
    Avatar photogrizzlymc
    Participant

    Thank you bandit.  My anti BP credentials are quite established, whereas games with simple rules that do a limited number 9f things well h@’ve always had an appeal.

    #7105
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    If I buy a set of rules, I want a set of rules. Not a flippin’ toolkit.

    Well of course that’s exactly what you get with Black Powder straight out of the box – in spades! The toolkit add-ons should you later wish to ‘customise’ your game for a particular campaign or scenario are a big billy bonus!

    Reminds me of a story about Admiral ‘Jacky’ Fisher, the irascible Admiral who put the Royal Navy into shape for WW1. He reinvented the concept of  a monitor – a no frills platform whose sole purpose was to provide Naval Gunfire Support – no armour, no communications and flag suite, no boat deck, no ‘admiral’s walk’. On being shown around the first in class by its enthusiastic Captain, the latter waxed lyrical about its new mixed fuel propulsion plant. Jacky struck the rail in disgust and was said to have expleted: Damn your fancy engines, all I wanted was a simple bloody hull built around the biggest bloody pair of guns they could find!

    The deflated 4 -ringer rallied bravely and enquired of the exasperated First Lord where he was to find tugboats that would tow his guns to within effective range of an enemy coast!

    (To Jacky’s credit, the story is that he saw the funny side!)

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #7119
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    Bandit wrote:
    If I buy a set of rules, I want a set of rules. Not a flippin’ toolkit.

    Well, I didn’t actually write that, Not Connard Sage did. Regardless.

    #7124
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    Sorry, I did know that, purely finger trouble, but apologies to both of you!

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #7134
    Avatar photowillz
    Participant

    “Grizzlymc Wrote” This is why whenever McDonalds creates anything remotely palatable it removes it from the menu.

    McDonalds coffee is excellent it tastes the same the world over.

    I have been watching this debate with interest, not having visited beer and pretzel show my experience is limited.  However if I have caught the gist correctly its all about fast play, simple rules, fun, food, alcohol and social interaction.  That looks like war-gaming, you can over complicate matters by trying to make games to realistic and take into account every factor.  I remember when computers first hit the streets some games were played using the computer for various orders and random events (is this still happening?), did it help, I have know idea.

    I find I want my rules to be simple and fast, I have a short attention span, play for fun and enjoyment.

     

    #7163
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    part of the B&P ethos

    but BP is just too bloody random for me

    I concur personally but I think he was referring to B&P as “beer and pretzels” not BP, aka Black Powder.

     

    Well reading comprehension was never my strong point, but at least I’m not alone here

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7165
    Avatar photoExtraCrispy
    Participant

    One of the big decision a designer has to make for any game is how far down the distribution curve he wants to go. For example, lots of new research on the ACW points to the rifled musket not being that much of a game changer. Sure, it *could* reach out to 300-400-500 yards.  But in point of fact, the training required to do so was, for the most part, entirely lacking. Firefights in the ACW took place mostly at very short range (under 200 yards and closer to 125 on average).

    Assuming you accept this the designer has a problem. If he sets musket range to 200 yards, the howls from the grognards will be intense. Most every other set of rules has ranges several times that. And even if the new research is acknowledged, the counter examples will flow of engagements at 300, 400 or 500. Your rules will then be deemed “unrealistic” and binned.

    But you notice how no one ever says after a game…wow, 90% of our shooting was at 350 yards. These rules are complete bunk?

    In some cases you *want* this – you want to allow gamers to do things differently than was done historically. That’s part of the fun (if I’d been in charge at Waterloo, no way Wellington holds etc.). But often you don’t want this as you want gamers to face the same constraints as their counterparts. So I don’t allow shooting at 400 yards because even if you gave the order to do so, none of your troops have been trained in how to do ir. So at that point you;re just wasting ammunition.

    As I often say, give a gamer an inch, he’ll take a mile and a half.

    #7170
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    That all comes down to different interpretations of what ‘realism’ is EC.

    All I ask from a game is that it feels right (again, that’s subjective) and produces a believable result.

    Moving out of period here, I believe that in FoG skirmishers are deadly because you can’t kill the buggers . They just keep evading and shooting unless you manage to chase them off a table edge. That’s not believable. You have to factor in attrition, fatigue and ammunition supply somehow.

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7174
    Avatar photoExtraCrispy
    Participant

    I agree but notice that success is measured by Believable (subjective), interpretation (subjective) and feels right (subjective).

    Again, I think a simulation CAN be a beer and pretzels game depending on what you want to simulate. I just think in wargaming “simulation” has come to mean something different (i.e. rules which account for water evaporation in North Africa, button metal composition during a Russian Winter, or relative powder effectiveness in the 90% humidity of Georgia in August…)

    #7181
    Avatar photoMcLaddie
    Participant

    Assuming you accept this the designer has a problem. If he sets musket range to 200 yards, the howls from the grognards will be intense. Most every other set of rules has ranges several times that. And even if the new research is acknowledged, the counter examples will flow of engagements at 300, 400 or 500. Your rules will then be deemed “unrealistic” and binned.
    But you notice how no one ever says after a game…wow, 90% of our shooting was at 350 yards. These rules are complete bunk?

    For a gamer, the design either does or doesn’t meet his personal interpretation of realism, reasonable, feels right and believable in whatever manner that gamer determines such things.  That conclusion can be made in the time it takes to read these two sentences and can be based on anything including how they feel about the designer.

    As a designer, you have a choice: You can attempt to model the research and create something that can and will produce howls from the prospective customer

    OR you design by targeting the most commonly held beliefs in hopes of having a widely accepted product.

    I can see one intersection of simulation and Beer & Pretzels located at that ‘OR’.   The notion that simulations target all the detail while games go for the fun is one of those widely held and strongly entrenched beliefs that also meets at that intersection… or in this case, the divide.

    #7297
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    Yes – and an allied factor in the ‘B&P-Simulation’ spectrum is the complexity entry threshold. And, frankly, as much as I think of myself as an amateur historian and one who takes playing with toy soldiers as seriously as the medium allows (!), these days I am turned off any ruleset that appears overly complex.

    That said, I appreciate there are two factors involved in discussions about complexity and realism – firstly complexity doesn’t automatically produce realism; and what might appear to be complex rules can soon be made to run fast and smooth. And of course simple rules can be elegantly realistic, and ‘fast play’ rules jarringly unplayable…

    Nevertheless, in this age of steadily decreasing attention spans, its something our aspiring rules designer has to account for. People I respect tell me that Republic to Empire is a great set of Napoleonic rules, but when I picked a copy up, I was put off straight away by the 5 page ‘quick’ reference sheet! And I’m sure I wasn’t the only one…

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #7303
    Avatar photogrizzlymc
    Participant

    Mcladdie and Mr deep fried, a good example of what you are talking about is Pony Wars which unabashedly is a game abut the Hollywood version of the wild west.  It is also a superb example of a slightly overweight beer and pretzels game.

    #7306
    Avatar photoExtraCrispy
    Participant

    It’s a funny thing too about gamers. we react in wildly unreliable ways.

    I sell “Republic to Empire.” It has a tri-fold QRS including numerous combat charts. Many gamers take one look and walk away. BUT the charts are actually quite clever. There is one for infantry vs. infantry, one for cavalry vs. cavalry, one for cavalry vs. infantry and so on. This allows the designer to account for a lot of variables “behind the scenes.’ All the charts work the same way, and read the same way. So you have lots and lots of variables built into the charts without having to even think about them. Even when I point that out, gamers tell me “the guys will never go for it.”

    Okay have fun rolling your 12 dice for 4 or better….

    #7308
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    And what we’ve reach is the “approachability factor”. I trace a lot of things in my mind back to dating. Doesn’t matter how willing, single or interested in you she is, if she doesn’t look approachable then the decent “nice guys” will never go talk to her. Just the way it is. She’ll still get attention, she’s a woman at a bar – but will it be the attention she was looking for? Eh, perhaps not. And it is similar with wargame rules.

    If a rule set is conceptually straight forward, historical, etc… but it is not approachable because the charts look huge and are dense, the text is laborious and drones on for 150-200 pages, etc…

    So, yes, some players will jump into it, but a lot are going to pan it. Perfectly good gamers, gamers that would have made a great boyfriend / husband / longterm stable guy for that gal sitting at the bar.

    Intimidating ≠ approachable.

    She can be really smart, lots of guys like smart women, but if she makes the guy feel dumb… yeah guys don’t like to feel dumb cause well no one does.

    If the rules are incredibly well researched and the mechanics represent that research, excellent, but if the mechanics are so laborious that it takes five minutes to learn how to resolve movement… unlikely perspective gamers will hang around.

    She can have a great career, today’s men don’t mind women working, maybe because we just aren’t hung up on it, maybe because so many women work we’ve just accepted it and moved forward. But in any case if she gives you the impression that you have to compete with her in order not to be made small by her great career advancement… yeah, no guy wants to be the “also ran” in his own relationship.

    So these well researched, historically accurate rules seem to cover everything, and that is awesome, but *everything* has a special case rule, if playing the game is like some sort of quiz on how well do you know the rules and how well can you guess the designer’s perspective on X random situation – not a lot of wargamers are going to stick around for that.

    Anyways, I got to rambling and making analogies to dating but point is, 16 pages of charts are intimidating and the average player is unlikely to ever find out how simplistically or straight forwardly they function because neither of those change the intimidation factor which causes him to run well before making much use of those charts…

    #7339
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    Agreed. Although I’m not sure I’m comfortable with ‘Black Powder’ being a blowsy blonde sitting at the bar blowing smoke at me….whereas R2E is the lass with glasses who works in the library…I think of BP more as a hearty ‘huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ Home counties ‘gel’ who is beyond reproach in public, but, well, is a tiger in the bedroom….

    Mark – totally get where you’re coming from with R2E and I’m sure you’re right, it gels with what a couple of respected Kiwi gamers have told me, and no doubt I made an error of judgement. But now I’m happily married to BP, for better, for worse!

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #7376
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    Approachability isn’t a question of if you are happy with your choice though. For instance, Todd Fisher would tell you he is largely happy with Revolution & Empire (which is not Revolution to Empire, completely different thing by different people), but Todd’s contentment does not make R&E ‘approachable’. Similarly, Sparker’s like for Black Powder does not make it approachable. Rather that means those rules are compatible with those players (more on compatibility at the end). According to the respective partisans, both rules are excellent, and heck, they may be, but the question that has come to light is that of approachability.

    Having spoken with Todd on this subject, he would concur that R&E is intimidating, mostly that doesn’t bother him, the gamer he wrote it for is not one who will be turned off based on that intimidation factor and that is a perfectly valid position.

    Having just read Sparker’s post, he may not feel that Black Powder is intimidating – but I would argue that from a non-partisan perspective, it most certainly is, though for a completely different reason than R&E.

    Revolution & Empire is intimidating because it is so dense and so detailed (per Todd a strength, but still intimidating).

    Revolution to Empire is intimidating because it *appears* to have so many charts (per Mark [Extra Crispy] a strength, but still intimidating).

    Black Powder is intimidating because there is little structure, everything is a suggestion (per Sparker a strength, but still intimidating).

    See a trend here?

    Intimidation is the opposite of approachability.

    Approachability has many facets and considerations:
    • How much effort does it take to become familiar with the sequence of play?
    • How much effort does it take to become capable of chart resolution?
    • Can a player immediately, under the pressure of playing, determine what chart he/she needs for what?
    • How common is it for players to reference the text to determine an outcome or procedure?
    • How visually dense are the charts?
    • How cross-referenced is the text?
    • How thick is the rule book?
    • How complex are the mechanics?
    • How fast does the game play in relation to real-time?

    This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it in order of any kind of priority or importance. Point is, your favorite rules can be amazing, but if players don’t find them approachable, then you *necessarily* have a hard time finding players.

    Lastly,

    whereas R2E is the lass with glasses who works in the library

    No, 1) because librarians in ‘hot teacher glasses’ are stereotypically attractive and 2) even if they aren’t, that is a stereotype of the mousy, easily approached woman. The question isn’t about being attractive to the audience, the question is about being approachable by the audience.

    Attraction you can’t control. Different men are attracted to different things, some guys like big gals some guys like skinny gals, some guys like other guys… Attraction is not within the designer’s power to govern or control.

    Approachability is the question of – if someone is attracted to you, do they feel comfortable approaching you? Thus, with wargaming rules one can presume that they are attracted to your favorite set, you apparently by happenstance chose the same scale and scope they play for the right period, etc… Now, when they glance over that rule book, will they feel it is something they can approach or something that is going to waste their effort?

    To lay out some of the terms here:
    Attraction – Exactly how it sounds.
    Approachability – How comfortable your target audience and the masses each feel in spending time with the rules resulting in their likelihood to do so.
    Compatibility – Given that someone was attracted to the rules and felt comfortable approaching them, do the rules do what the player wants for the long haul.

    In the case of Black Powder:
    • Attractive – To some.
    • Approachable – To some.
    • Compatible – At least for Sparker :-p

    That is pretty typical, those who like it, play it, those who don’t, don’t. But when designing I think few designers have considered anything other than attraction and compatibility. They figure they know their rules will be attractive to X gamer and compatible with Y [subset of X] gamer. Thing is, they are likely missing a bunch of people who would found the rules attractive but never determined if they were compatible because they found the rules were not approachable.

    #7383
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    Ah, but!

     

    I don’t find Black Powder ‘intimidating’, I just find it a rather loose mishmash of ‘things you can do, if you like’.  If I wanted to write my own rules from a grab bag of ideas, I would, but I sure as hell ain’t paying for the privilege.

     

    Like I said, it’s all subjective. It’s impossible to lay down guidelines like you’re attempting to. One man’s meat, and all that.

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7390
    Avatar photogrizzlymc
    Participant

    Not Connard and I are in full agreement, to expand on Sparker’s analogy. I found the mid thigh length boots and riding crop vaguely appealing but on their removal the promise did not carry over into action.

     

    still, I wish her well and am pleased to see that she brings pleasure to others.

    #7401
    Avatar photoMcLaddie
    Participant

    In the case of Black Powder:

    • Attractive – To some.
    • Approachable – To some.
    • Compatible – At least for Sparker :-p

    That is pretty typical, those who like it, play it, those who don’t, don’t. But when designing I think few designers have considered anything other than attraction and compatibility. They figure they know their rules will be attractive to X gamer and compatible with Y [subset of X] gamer. Thing is, they are likely missing a bunch of people who would found the rules attractive but never determined if they were compatible because they found the rules were not approachable.

    Bandit:

    Most designers create games they like and know those around them will like–those X gamers.  It is hard enough to create something that appeals to a known target audience, let alone make it attractive  to that unknown ‘missing bunch’, attempting to make it all things to all gamers… even those that is the goal and often the extravagant claims of designers.  Or designers simply insist they know what all  wargamers care about and insist no one cares about any issues the ‘missing’ bunch would, deemed marginal at best.

    So the questions are the ‘how to’s’ in making a game attractive and approachable to more than ‘some’ gamers.  In some ways, BP has done that, being widely accepted [relatively], regardless of it’s failings.

    McLaddie

     

     

     

    #7403
    Avatar photowillz
    Participant

    Wow this debate is starting to look like home brain surgery and rocket science for beginners.

    War-gaming is a subjective hobby you pays your money and you push toy soldiers over table space.

    #7404
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    I don’t find Black Powder ‘intimidating’, I just find it a rather loose mishmash of ‘things you can do, if you like’.

    I found the mid thigh length boots and riding crop vaguely appealing but on their removal the promise did not carry over into action.

    Sure, so in your cases – and I imagine this is typical of those who don’t like Black Powder, you found it attractive & approachable but not compatible.

    In some ways, BP has done that, being widely accepted [relatively], regardless of it’s failings.

    I would agree with that.

    I think I wrote too much earlier and therefore made my point hard to see.

    Attractive – you design to appeal to a specific audience, i.e. people who are attracted to roughly the same things you are.
    Compatible – you provide methods and results that the same audience will agree with / like.

    Approachable – That is a question of if someone will even look at your rules after seeing how low detailed / dense / thick-charted / many stepped / put in whatever you like here, they are.

    Like I said, it’s all subjective. It’s impossible to lay down guidelines like you’re attempting to. One man’s meat, and all that.

    This I disagree with. Just because you can’t influence or define something completely doesn’t mean there is no value in influencing or defining it to any degree. If this statement were actually true, then marketing wouldn’t work… and yeah, lots of people buy lots of stuff because of marketing, so there is *some* value in it.

    I guess my point is that you can make a rules set that a given player is attracted to, would be satisfied with, but will never choose to dig into because the player sees it as not approachable.

    #7405
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    War-gaming is a subjective hobby you pays your money and you push toy soldiers over table space.

    No one is saying otherwise, I certainly haven’t said otherwise.

    #7407
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    I don’t find Black Powder ‘intimidating’, I just find it a rather loose mishmash of ‘things you can do, if you like’.

    I found the mid thigh length boots and riding crop vaguely appealing but on their removal the promise did not carry over into action.

    Sure, so in your cases – and I imagine this is typical of those who don’t like Black Powder, you found it attractive & approachable but not compatible.

     

    No, you’re not reading what I wrote. I found BP neither attractive or approachable (it didn’t do anything for me, to return to the woman in a bar thing), therefore it’s not ever going to be compatible.

    Dunno how Grizz feels about BP. I’m sure he’ll expand further though.

    This is coming close to turning into a BP hate fest, so let’s move on.

    There is no magic formula that makes one set of rules more acceptable than another. WRG ancients wouldn’t get another look now, but they were huge in their time. What does that mean, if anything?

     

     I guess my point is that you can make a rules set that a given player is attracted to, would be satisfied with, but will never choose to dig into because the player sees it as not approachable.

     

    I have no idea what you’re saying here. Unless it’s ‘some people like rules that other people don’t’

     

     

     

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7415
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    There is no magic formula that makes one set of rules more acceptable than another.

    That’s right, I think several wargaming genres have been around long enough that if a ‘universal’, widely accepted set of rules was going to emerge, they would have done so by now. And I guess the WRG/DBA/DBM continuum is as close as we will ever see to a universally accepted set of rules, and look how bitter that story got…

    I think of myself as the type of wargamer that is most likely to sacrifice my opinion of a ruleset at the altar of playing in the mainstream, as what turns my props are large, multiplayer games, where command issues are inherent in the actual team interplay, but even I refuse to play a particular (ww2) ruleset, despite its popularity in my neck of the woods.

    Even if you really narrow down to a very specific genre or markets, say, rules for Napoleonics aimed at around the 1:20 figure ratio, and at the lower end of the Tactical spectrum, look at how many different ‘products’ there are; BP, R2E, Gen de Bde, ITGM, NAW (and apologies if I’ve no doubt missed one or two!) All with their faithful adherents and, I assume, more or less just about commercially viable?

    So I agree there is no magic formula or balance to achieve maximum impact – you just have to write rules for yourself and your mates, and if they take off, so much the better.

    Which, incidentally, is rather what happened with Black Powder, hence its somewhat disorganised layout. Once they realised they were onto something commercially viable, later iterations (Hail Caesar and Pike N Shotte) looked much more like an actual set of rules!

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #7428
    Avatar photoMcLaddie
    Participant

    That’s right, I think several wargaming genres have been around long enough that if a ‘universal’, widely accepted set of rules was going to emerge, they would have done so by now….So I agree there is no magic formula or balance to achieve maximum impact – you just have to write rules for yourself and your mates, and if they take off, so much the better.

    Sparker:

    From what I’ve read so far, I don’t think anyone was talking about some magic formula.  I think the question was what elements in a rules set, from presentations to rules content seem to work better than others? Obviously there are adherents to a variety of wargames from simulations to Beer & Pretzels. What are those things in common, at the intersection that appeal to most gamers.  It’s like writing for a literary genre. Lots of different takes on mysteries or Vampire love stories, but there are common elements in presentation and content across all genres and more to the point, common elements and draws within a genre even though each story and characters can be very different.

    Lots of different kinds of wargames out there, even with the Napoleonic niche in the Historical Wargame hobby, but the games do have some things in common and some elements in both presentation and content work better than others across the entire spectrum of designs.

     

    #7453
    Avatar photoBandit
    Participant

    What McLaddie said.

    Essentially I started this topic to discuss what positives could be pulled into Simulation games from Beer & Pretzel games and what benefits there were as well as to consider how much of that you can do before a game intended as a Simulation comes to be thought of as a Beer & Pretzels game. It is a balance question. Not looking for a magic bullet, rather a clearER* picture.

    Beer & Pretzel games are generally far more approachable than Simulation games as far as how the general audience of wargamers perceives them.

    Many players who’d be happy with a given Simulation game never find out that it is compatible with their desires because Simulation games are commonly not easily approached. Thus, digging into approachability and bringing it into a Simulation game could broaden its audience.

    Having pondered this for quite some time now, I’ll tell you that it has given me a much greater respect for Beer & Pretzels games and caused me to no longer consider the term derogatory. Just because something is “fast play” doesn’t mean it is “ahistorical crap,” though there may be a higher percentage of that occurring in “fast play” than in other genres of games, it isn’t an intrinsic characteristic and such rules should be judged in their own right, not as a group.

    Sorta like games that use troop class systems instead of national characteristics. The Austrians in 1805 may have a higher percentage of Class C units but that doesn’t mean they don’t have any Class As or Bs…

    *emphasized the ER because people sometimes get hung up on a “clear understanding is never possible!” well, perhaps not but a clearer one is…

    #7459
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    Oh don’t let’s get started on ‘national characteristics’, we’ll be here forever.

     

    What makes a Prussian from Halle better, or worse, than a Saxon born just down the road in Schkopau?

     

    National characteristics are just lazy shorthand for ‘I like the (insert nation of choice, but it’s usually France or Britain), so I’m going to give them extra shooting/melee/manoeuvre factors in my rules. You’ve only to look at Quarrie’s rules to see how saft that can get.

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7478
    Avatar photoHenry Hyde
    Participant

    Huh? What you say in’ about my favourite rules?

     

    seriously though, for a couple of years in my mid-teens, they were. The Airfix Guide to Napoleonic Wargaming and Napoleon’s Campaigns in Miniature had pride of place in my library. Ah, happier times… What was it? Prussian Landwehr in line, 40mm? And  French Carabiniers in column 5mm faster than Fusiliers? *sigh*

    Editor, Battlegames
    http://battlegames.co.uk
    Battlegames on Patreon
    https://www.patreon.com/battlegames
    Author, The Wargaming Compendium
    http://amzn.to/leWoNO

    #7480
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    Dunno without looking Henry, my copy of NCiM is upstairs and I’m down

    They are very much of their time though, and the years haven’t been kind.

    You could say the same about me…

     

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #7481
    Avatar photoMcLaddie
    Participant

    Well, regardless of the perceived  “Beer & Pretzel” level of a miniature wargame, the designers still all claim to have captured something of ‘real combat”, from Snappy Nappy, Colors & Command to Black Powder and Lasalle all the way up through the many games to Empire and Valmy to Waterloo.

    It seems to be a question of how much military history is included and reasonably portrayed.  I have yet to see a Beer & Pretzel game, even Fist full of Dice say that the game has nothing to do with actual history or it is just a Hollywood version of war.  Others tend to make those kinds of judgement about someone else’s game design.  For instance, Henry H. saw Bolt Action as a Hollywood version of WWII [in comments from the last Wargame Recon blog], but I know the designers and promoters of the game claim something different and never label it as such.

    If what constitutes a “Beer & Pretzel” game is simply someone’s personal opinion, then as noted, it means 1. only that someone likes or dislikes that particular game and 2.that there is no intersection between simulations and Beer & Pretzel designs… it is all smeared together with no distinctions other than ‘feelings’ and thus no dichotomy or differences exist to provide any possible intersection of types.

    It comes  back to the goals for the design and what history was or was not included.

     

     

     

     

    #7482
    Avatar photoPatrice
    Participant

    That all comes down to different interpretations of what ‘realism’ is EC. All I ask from a game is that it feels right (again, that’s subjective) and produces a believable result. Moving out of period here, I believe that in FoG skirmishers are deadly because you can’t kill the buggers . They just keep evading and shooting unless you manage to chase them off a table edge. That’s not believable. You have to factor in attrition, fatigue and ammunition supply somehow.

    I don’t play FoG, but I could accept that this really simulates something: not the true ability of any skirmisher unit (which as you say should suffer attrition etc), but the point of view of their opponents who are pestered by loose groups of skirmishers and could never totally get rid of them or even know exactly how many they are…

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    https://www.anargader.net/

    #7483
    Avatar photoHenry Hyde
    Participant

    I think they [Quarry’s rules] sated the teenage thirst for detail and precision at an age where I hadn’t fully understood that that doesn’t necessarily equate with accuracy. After all, I was doing my O Levels which, looking back, simply required one to be a sponge and soak up masses of facts and figures. It was only later in my teens, A Levels and then university, which taught me to question everything I’d so slavishly learned by rote.

    over on the Ancients board, Allen Curtis has pointed out that really, we still know very little about the barbarian tribes that faced Rome. For Napoleonics, it’s almost the opposite — too much information, with us in danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees. I’m sure many a beer & pretzel game has produced an outcome just as plausible as any simulation. Was it really worth me learning the 33X table and accounting for all those individual casualties? Preposterous nonsense, of course.

    Editor, Battlegames
    http://battlegames.co.uk
    Battlegames on Patreon
    https://www.patreon.com/battlegames
    Author, The Wargaming Compendium
    http://amzn.to/leWoNO

    #7487
    Avatar photoMcLaddie
    Participant

    I’m sure many a beer & pretzel game has produced an outcome just as plausible as any simulation.

    Henry:  I’m sure they have too, some place, at some time with some games in someone’ s opinion of what is plausible… depending on when you were born.

    This leaves the discussion locked at the level of ‘what’s your favorite color?’  And it seems that even determining which colors are more popular or why is out of the question–too subjective.

    I think we can do better than that.

    I think one problem is that every game designer wants others to see their game design to both a simulation and Beer & Pretzels, to appeal to as many gamers as possible.  If anything, it’s harder to pretend with a game when the designer says there is no history involved to pretend with.  Fantasy games have no such expectations, though I know of some that can argue quite forcefully that Orcs always have low morale.  

     

     

     

     

     

    #7492
    Avatar photogrizzlymc
    Participant

    Well, in real life you have to stiffen orc morale with magic

    #7495
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    Sparker:From what I’ve read so far, I don’t think anyone was talking about some magic formula.

    Well, clearly ‘Not Connard Sage’ was in the post directly above mine!

    There is no magic formula that makes one set of rules more acceptable than another.

    But I do admit to not understanding or recognizing an absolute distinction between ‘Beer and Pretzels’ and ‘Simulation’ – I see it more as a spectrum…

    Just because something is “fast play” doesn’t mean it is “ahistorical crap,”

    Yes, exactly, that’s what I was trying to say…

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #7496
    Avatar photoSparker
    Participant

    What makes a Prussian from Halle better, or worse, than a Saxon born just down the road in Schkopau?

    Nothing makes him intrinsically better, in terms of some twisted 19th century racial superiority sense. But lots of qualitative factors might: his training, his officer’s training and selection procedures, his country’s Regimental ethos, military culture and characteristics, the military administration – all these might be better in Prussia than in Saxony, with the end result that he might shoot faster and straighter and stick to the Colours for longer…

    Whilst ‘National Characteristics’ might be an unfortunate term, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the notion that, most of the time, a Prussian unit might shoot and deploy and have better unit cohesion than a Saxon unit – most of the time!

     

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 101 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.