Open General Forums

MY POSTS

Prologue
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6921

An Important Bifurcation
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6927

The Big, Big Picture
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6931

I Want It Both Ways
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6949

"Grognards" vs. "Cartesiens"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6951

Beer & Pretzels Anyone ?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6954

Wargames vs. Wargaming Interests
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6956

Detail vs. Realism
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p9253

Kriegsspiel or Just Historically-Themed ?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10449

Kriegsspiel: Choose Your "Angles"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10477

Kriegsspiel: Overarching Realities
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10487

Kriegsspiel: Static Representations & Dynamicity
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10503

Kriegsspiel: Variational Aspects
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10528

Kriegsspiel: Only Humans Please
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10542

Verisimilitude: Half-Turns
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10550

Verisimilitude: God-Like Commanders
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10568

Verisimilitude: Of Hexes & Men
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10591

Verisimilitude: Scale Matters
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10635

Verisimilitude: Strength Factor Status
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p10700

Verisimilitude: Leadership Quality
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p11416

Verisimilitude: Morale
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p11570

Details: "Chrome" vs. "Dirt"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p11929

Warfare Scale: Consequent Abstraction Challenges
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p12151

Supplies: Representation Challenges
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p12518

Resupply: Spatial Thorniness
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p12907

Concluding Remarks
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p14070


Topic Legitimacy

The Pub's description follows:

Place of the offtopic, funny or interesting threads, discussions about history, politics, movies and other war games.

Is "historical wargaming"

1) . . . off topic ? It doesn't much matter, does it ? The expression "Place of the offtopic" should take care of "things", right ?

2) . . . funny ? Perhaps. However this won't be my angle under this new topic.

3) . . . interesting ? Well, some newcomer to these forums might think so.

4) . . . connected to "history, politics, movies" ? As far as I'm concerned, I've absolutely no desire to enter into such discussions, even if tangentially relevant.

Key Reference

Wargames vs. Wargaming Interests
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6956

Other Wargaming Topics

[OPN] HexCode - Opinions
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=503

Chess & Wargaming: Musings & Angles
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=281

Content Design & Play Platforms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=616

The AH Blitzkrieg Connection
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=605

The Meaning of Victory (Play Systems)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=522

Prologue

Over many months now, I've been desperately avoiding to raise the subject of "Historical Wargaming". After all, the titles of these forums are mercifully devoid of such terms as "history" and "historical", right ? Alas, certain posters are just... relentless !

Ok, let's get started. From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

"Historical Wargaming" constitutes a time-honored slice of wargaming as a whole. It bifurcates into "Historically Themed" and "Historically Simulated" sub-components. Wargamers enamored with historical simulations usually refer to themselves as "Historical Wargamers". Quite a few of them use the term "Grognard" as well.

Historical Simulations are not games. For sure, one can "play". But, one cannot really "game"... In the veritable chess tradition, "gaming" takes place in a highly stylized, aesthetic environment where symbolic abstraction directly aids skillful play. Most importantly, the "rules" are totally transparent to players.

Historical simulations exhibit excruciatingly representational detail which is detrimental to classic "gaming". Computer versions invariably "hide" the "rules" as well. Moreover, such versions often attempt to trigger "actually being there", psychological states in wargamers by employing various audiovisual effects and role-playing language.

AND

... it's nearly impossible to follow any rules ...

Presumably, "rules" refer to constraints that are historically binding, right ? Are these "rules" just a subset of the "historical wargame's rules" ? By the way, are the "historical wargame's rules" transparent ?

... as the [historical war]game is not a real simulation ...

Are there any historical wargames out there that are real simulations ? If so, what is it exactly that such historical simulations are supposed to do ?

... there are elements ... that prevent a "carved-in-stone" approach, especially when it's not exactly necessary ...

Necessary for whom ? Historical wargame (rules & content) designers or players ? Isn't a "carved-in-stone" approach the Holy Grail of military historians the world over ?

... most of the campaigns are fictional ...

How come ? Aren't all historical wargame (rules & content) designers and players fixated on being faithful to "objective" military history ?

baah, whatever.... everybody knows that me and Hex are in feud since Scythia talks and not talking mutually, but lets put few lines, leisure style

i am still to find "historical game" which indeed is illogical term - i mean, one have to kill xxx number of units and lose xxx amount of them in some "historical game battle" to make it historical with "xxx" being exact number happening on given day or time period, and am not looking that hard for a game which isn't fun ; ... qickly remembered - something different from his point - i already had few lines with Bombast and Randowe in some thread about "historical" part in games based on history, but non-wargame title. It looked so bad that i commented something like "this is a first degree offense by Paradox etc. etc." (it was their game, unimportant) regarding some economical representation of a region IIRC ...when it comes to some technical details dissertation regarding numbers and specs and wargames exclusively (not even being so called board gamer evolved into computer one) i'll pass gladly...


generally it is safe to say that i didn't get the point but commented nonetheless to add length to the thread - do not even presume that my and his points are in connection ) good luck to all discusants...

AN IMPORTANT BIFURCATION

Apparently, there's a fundamental attitudinal bifurcation that lies at the heart of the subject:

Historical War Simulations appear to aim at "objectively" recreating reasonably well documented (in a military history sense) historical, armed conflict events in toto.

Historically-Themed Wargames appear to aim at the same thing (plus many other "things") but subject to an extremely important proviso: the "objective" recreation is à-la-carte.

It appears that "hardcore Historical War Simulationists" are hostile to "playing / gaming". Their basic argument is that, as an academic subject, military history can't legitimately entertain "what ifs". In their view, Historical War Simulations aren't... toys but rather helpful tools in the service of serious military history scholarship. Moreover, if something isn't "objectively" known, the military historian can't sweep it under the rug to come up with some "complete" picture.

I would suggest that a fruitful way of looking at Historically-Themed Wargames is to serially identify the principal deviations that such constructs exhibit vis-à-vis some envisaged, "ideal" Historical War Simulation...

THE BIG, BIG PICTURE

Historical wargaming, "grognard" tendencies, ok, ok; the below may prove useful in the sense that it can be referenced in the future, if need be... Basically, it's time to bring in the... analytical heavies !

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

THE FOUNDATIONS

Let me summarize a time-honored list of foundational issues and points of contention in the vast area of "Historical Wargaming". No matter what wargame aspect one may want to focus on, such overarching concepts will be there, for better or worse...

THE WHOLE AND ITS PARTS

In some "extreme" hobby quarters, no wargame is "historically legitimate" unless all of its aspects are individually, "historically legitimate". To boot, if any "important" aspect is just missing, well, this invalidates the wargame title as a whole...

THE "FETISHISM" OF SOME PART(S)

Quite a few hobbyists choose to almost exclusively focus only on a few wargame aspects in attempting to either find or induce "historicity". They aren't very much bothered by (many ?) other title aspects that may also be "historically questionable".

REPUTABLE MUSEUM PRESENTATION

Some hobbyists choose to view wargames as convenient shortcuts to visiting a reputable war museum. To the extent that the wargame's presentation features are "historically accurate", all is well and good. This, often, includes real-time presentation (re-creation) of "historically unfolding" events.

SPECULATIVE OR COUNTERFACTUAL ?

Some hobbyists are willing to entertain notions of "alternative history", provided certain "safeguards" are in place. Thus, as long as a wargame provides "assurances" that play will by necessity generate speculative (i.e., "historically plausible") outcomes, such hobbyists are willing to "tolerate" such "deviations". Otherwise, the wargame title just amounts to a... toy that generates "plainly" counterfactual outcomes. Such outcomes, some hobbyists contend, are, well, ... rubbish.

"APPLIED" HISTORY

A few academics and research institute specialists have proposed notions amounting to opening the profession's doors to "Applied" History. Such professionals seek to apply models of historical processes to predict future historical outcomes. As one may readily imagine, at least as a concept, wargame modelling fits very nicely with such "serious" desires... Hence, Mr. Dunnigan's old notion of and interest in "analytic" history !

PLAY BALANCE IS IRRELEVANT

Some hobbyists consider a wargame's play balance issues to be detrimental to "historicity". Basically, they say, one is either "into history" or he just plays, psychologically egged on by some form of "historical connection". In fact, many such hobbyists claim, no "historical connection" at all is better than "hybrid monstrosities" which are responsible for serious "historical misconceptions"...

Note: James F. Dunnigan, of yesteryear's Simulations Publications Inc. (SPI) "fame", is an author, military analyst and prolific wargame designer.

I WANT IT BOTH WAYS

As an issue, the fidelity of iconic depictions of military hardware and the like has been small potatoes when compared to the historicity and logical consistency "heavies" that have been all the rage in "serious (?) wargaming". Major concerns regarding wargames' symbolic and dynamic capabilities (S&DCs) have always been present in this vast and most challenging Wargame Designer vista.

The foregoing notwithstanding, I believe that hobbyist psychology has played a major role here...

Historically Accurate Starting Snapshot ?

Overwhelmingly, "historical wargaming" at the operational / strategic level has been focusing on the realism and accuracy of appropriate battlefield / theater starting "positions". More often than not, the dynamic elements of unfolding events have been given, well, short shrift when compared to the almost obsessive drive to "accurately" describe certain moments in military history !

I believe that powerful psychological processes have been at play here. Never mind that "historical wargamers" (especially "grognards") have tended to steadfastly deny that their "objectivity" could be impaired or deflected by any psychological factors. The root cause here has been an "ueber-desire"; namely, there's been a yearning for a "super-snapshot-picture" that would perfectly describe some important moment in military history down to the most minute detail... In other words, the challenge of the starting "position" hasn't really been of a symbolic (analytical) nature. Rather, it has sprung from a deeply rooted desire to depict everything with 100% fidelity ! In this manner, a professed interest in "historical accuracy" quickly gave way to a "deep historical connection" and eventually mutated into a most satisfying (or frustrated) feeling of "(not) being there"...

Tactical or What ? Both ?

The foregoing should go a long way towards explaining, say, the PG World's enduring "obsession" with detailed depictions and specifications of military hardware. Even in wargames that purport to model operational and / or strategic aspects of warfare, "historical wargamers" have been unrelenting; they wanted their detailed pictures and specs... In other words, the... lieutenant or major were it ! As for the general or marshal, well...

There's an irony in all this. Tactical wargames invariably aimed at modelling small-scale warfare that, on the face of it, is much closer to meeting the aforementioned desire for detailed depiction. At the same time, they have tended to deal with "typical actions in unspecified locales". Well, many "historical wargamers" have not been satisfied. They wanted "accurate" dates, Orders of Battle (OoB) and so on. To this effect, they entered the realm of operational / strategic wargaming to satisfy their thirst for "more documented history". Having done so, they still wanted to retain their precious platoon / company detail...

Where does all this leave "us" ? Simply, SSI's PG1 and most spun off variants, emulations and significant extensions have taken the cake for supporting such eminently understandable but, nevertheless, conflicted hobbyist desires and approaches to "serious (?) wargaming" ! For better or worse, that is...

so, i consider his threads more or less "open mike" style, however i'll not post much here, on the contrary i finish with some things i remembered, again not in line with Hex, but gaming topics in one way or another...

not so long ago game called "Cauldrons of War - Barbarossa" (try not to post links unless needed) was published with tags "historic", "wargame", "ww2", "grand", "TB" etc. beside its low content and (relatively) low price. Why mention? well, on Steam (sorry to mention i dislike marketing esp. not own) it got almost all positive reviews from players, though not many of them like other games someone also classifies as "wargames".... text-based, operational level, without any tactical battles and all and (which is rare) "serious" with even mention of mass killings, rapes, looting etc. People and its selected audience - as said I'm not a theorist and classificator on what constitutes any genre, nor theorist of subgenre - liked it, obviously. Point? considering its style and mechanics I'd never consider it fun and nearly as good as its "selected audience"... but not so hard to say that (I'll admit) leading Orcs or half-naked Chicks is sometimes better option to me... childish? well creator or such serious mentioned title made game of cat-dressing puzzle and fights as his/her first title (easy check on steam i do not know creator/s, so i'm joking about truth)

personally most interesting and in own way fun debate (also draging from and dating to 90s) to me was that about real time vs tbs games What is more realistic, are ones more reflex and speed based vs careful positioning and using unit potential to the fullest, death in seconds vs chance to relocate etc. etc. arguments mostly known to all readers.... however always interesting to see people still debating it, sometimes passionately proving that they are "true generals, even kings!" if they move real or turn-by-turn guess realism and level of excitement was never crucial factor to me nor i ever debated on subject, while belonging to "tbs camp".

mike back to Hex and his points, this is just something i added not related to any previous point... everybody can add something to my words (except Paradox people, i'm not talking to them as well!) as always but there is nothing debatable there, just observations and something i find funny or interesting...

one old gaming note and argument, dating somewhere to first half of 90s, and personally funny, there was even discussion and pro et contras to it:

[quote]person X (my edit) of GamePro .....................................but otherwise panned the game, contending that war strategy games in general are poor due to their minimalist graphics and focus on thinking rather than acting[/qoute]

"GROGNARDS" VS. "CARTESIENS"

I've already alluded to the existence and significance of "grognards" and "grognard wargaming" on a number of occasions.There's a particular empirical observation that time and time again surfaces and triggers discussion / acknowledgment. It appears that each "grognard" is very much committed to checking out whether certain aspects of a wargame meet his historical accuracy criteria and tests. If they do, all's well with the wargame in toto ! If not, the wargame is rejected in toto ! In other words, a "grognard's" personal display of "fetishism" over some considerations invariably ends up in thumbs up / down summary assessments of wargames...

What's way less known is that there's a counterpart to a "grognard" to be found in certain (admittedly waning) strategy wargaming quarters; enter the "cartesien" (one French term deserves another, I guess ). The allusion here is to the rationalist French philosopher René Descartes. It appears that each "cartesien" is very much into checking whether certain mechanics and internals of a wargame meet his logical consistency criteria and tests. If they do, all's well with the wargame in toto ! If not, the wargame is rejected in toto ! In other words, a "cartesien's" personal display of "fetishism" over some considerations invariably ends up in thumbs up / down summary assessments of wargames...

Here's an inviting example taken from SSI's PG1. All air unit classes but one sport a fuel rating. The one that doesn't is, of course, the air transport one. It's not hard to imagine a "cartesien" referring to PG1 as a "beer & pretzels" game just because of the aforesaid "logical anomaly"...

The emergence and subsequent flourishing (in relative terms, of course) of the computer-enabled strategy wargame has led to a thinning out of the "cartesien" ranks. This is because, unlike in the case of their tabletop predecessors, computer-enabled wargames routinely conceal their internals and advanced mechanics from players.

BEER & PRETZELS ANYONE ?

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

One thing that's bedeviled the PG World Hobby since the release of PG1 more than half a generation ago has been the... wargame connection. Simply put, once the magic word (i.e., "wargame") appears, "grognard" ears perk up... All it takes, then, is for a "historical theme" to be mentioned and, well, acrimony and misunderstandings tend to follow...

It would be unfair to claim that "grognards" are completely "at fault" here. The PG World has long developed an appetite for historically accurate depictions of military hardware. Many, many icons have been produced by hobbyists over the years to satisfy that demand.

One of the many preoccupations of "computer grognards" has been to ensure that depictive representation of military hardware featured in "historical" wargames be historically accurate ! The Hobby's appetite for military hardware icons, thus, opened the door for "computer grognard" critique to take hold. To boot, a "computer grognard" preoccupation with "historically accurate" unit specifications (E-files), that has also been a constant Hobby companion, opened that door even wider ! And, then, the accuracy of maps became an issue for "computer grognard" critique and so on...

Historically, quite a few "grognards" have referred to wargames broadly based on SSI's 5 Star General play system as "beer & pretzels" stuff... In doing so, these gentlemen have routinely conflated a few nuances, even distinct views and approaches to the Hobby at large.

A) Technically speaking, a 5 Star General wargame is "agnostic" when it comes to how hobbyists will be relating to it. The presence of audio-visual features aiming at some form of entertainment does not necessarily color the entire game. This is so provided options are readily available to hobbyists to turn such features off, at will...

However, the very fact that hobbyists exist who consider a wargame's audio-visual features important may have a significant impact on the development of such wargames through the well known marketplace feedback which expresses itself in dollars, euros etc... To boot, their "public" presence (e.g., forum posts) may deflect from or even derail discussion continuity in other, well, ... stodgier quarters !

B) Empirically speaking, 5 Star General wargame have been reasonably popular for half a generation now. Some "grognards" may choose to heap ridicule on hobbyists who move about and shoot with very little understanding of what's "really" going on... Well, not everyone has what it takes or is even interested in playing... SPI or Avalon Hill-style !

The preceding notwithstanding, the marketplace has certainly delivered a blow to a minuscule minority of hobbyists who could use SPI-style rulebooks... Whether this is a "legitimate oldtimer gripe" or not I will leave it to individual hobbyists to decide for themselves.

C) Finally, the old mantra regarding "historical accuracy" is being resurrected from time to time... I would suggest that hobbyists who live in glass houses should think twice before starting to hurl... stones !

...have referred to wargames broadly based on SSI's 5 Star General play system as "beer & pretzels" stuff...

minor but again - mentioned it few times myself - there is misconception about play system and its origins:

The design of Panzer General was based on the Japanese wargame Daisenryaku. The Strategic Simulations (SSI) team had played a Japanese-language version of the game's Sega Genesis (Mega drive) release extensively, and were inspired by its streamlined design. Scenario designer Chuck Kroegel later described Panzer General's structure as "diametrically opposed to the Gary Grigsby type of game that SSI was used to making." He noted that SSI founder Joel Billings was initially hesitant to adopt the design style. The company's Graeme Bayless later wrote of Daisenryaku, "The genius in this game was the fact that it took the highly complex subject (WWII conflict on land) and boiled it down to the pertinent parts."

Daisenryaku would go on to serve as the inspiration for the entire Panzer General series (and 5 star series).

so it is matter of accuracy and credits. As mentioned, SSI itself actually derailed from previous ideas and system to adopt one based on traditions one could more relate to Jap-RPGs.... in process further changing some elements to sympilfy the gameplay from far-eastern based gameplay system ; adding own mark...was an end product bad - certainly not and it created solid base for further development, not "finished" till this day... however it is a matter of acknowledgment, SSI staff wasn't running away from, so why should other do it.

to both me and SSI people this was important to mention again. my "game grade" based on gameplay is that games could have been more "heavier" in strategic sense (i was only yet elementary school teen while being able to successfully increase their difficulty and go away with it ingame...) and "realism" alike.... but already went through it - "realism and history" in games are to me uneffective and non-complementary things so i'm not looking for it - i was thinking more options like some strategic decissions, war logistics and such. certainly not lines like "we conquered it - should we rape, kill and loot or not?" which are realistic and historical and usual companion of (many) wars... i am opting for entertainment, not subject (if it was subject i'd stick to fantasy wars probably) while real history is much more disgusting matter usually never told nor accepted to the utmost and every detail, anywhere i added this on the run not to confuse my previous post with historical talks - however Daisenryaku point was, indeed, point of this addition by me ;

apropos mentioned "marketing and dollar/euro" part of it - it's quite fair to say (if not clear from combining my and his previous post) that adoption of system with simplifications and its likable presentation was very much marketing i.e. market oriented move by SSI, successful one in times when "wargame" was something less likable

WARGAMES VS. WARGAMING INTERESTS

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

There're wargames and, then, there's wargaming ! In my opinion, the two are definitely related but in no way synonymous... Invariably, wargames are marketed by publishers and are conceived of and developed by various types of specialists. Wargaming is what hobbyists actually do with published wargames.

A wargame is essentially an abstract model focusing on armed conflict the specific implementation and features of which allow certain types of wargaming to take place within its confines.

In the last 50 years or so, three broad classes of wargames have made their successful debut: miniature, board and computer / console ones. Computer / console (video) wargames have inherited many attributes, outlooks and approaches historically associated with their other two, somewhat older cousins.

Wargaming comprises quite a few types of hobbyist interests in many
combinations and varying proportions. Here are the principal ones:

1) MILITARY HISTORY is an old standard bearer here. Depictive, representational and, even, symbolic fidelity to the dicta of historical research are the key concerns of the professional as well as amateur military historian.

2) STRATEGY is another oldie interest. Competitive, interactive play to win (or, not lose) is the definite focus here.

3) IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE (and content) is a relatively new kid on the block or so "we" believe. Role playing and audio-visual effect "fests" rule the roost here but not to the exclusion of many other things...

There's been a long standing feud between military history and strategy focused wargaming. This has led to the appearance, adoption and use of labels such as "strategy wargamer" and "historical wargamer". To their credit, the more thoughtful and consistent "historical wargamers" have abandoned all references to "warGAMING" in favor of "SIMULATING war(fare)" or "SIMULATING conflict". These hobbyists have come to the realization that "strategy gaming" considerations are a direct threat to the main purpose of military history focused wargaming, namely, the accurate re-enactment of historically recorded armed conflict and, perhaps, the "scientific modelling" of carefully chosen, "realistic", but historically counterfactual ("what if") armed conflict variations.

Unfortunately, quite a few "historical wargamers" (i.e., "grognards") have been using the term "wargame" as being synonymous with "historically accurate war(fare) simulation". Similarly, the term "wargamer" has been viewed by them to be synonymous with "historically accurate conflict simulationist". "Grognards" have tended to frown upon just "historically inspired" wargaming. Furthermore, they have been very very much into "historical accuracy" and "historical realism", terms that they have been using interchangeably... Finally, they have considered "strategy gaming" considerations to be subordinate to "historical concerns", yet they never wanted to do away with such "gaming" completely. Unless one was, himself, a "grognard", it was a struggle to effectively communicate with many such hobbyists...

In general, wargames reflect market and marketing realities. I am not going to second guess here the economic efficiency of the underlying markets and the economic signals that wargame purchases send to the various wargame publishers / developers. However, it may be a good idea all around not to discuss wargames (particularly the ones exhibiting some connection with historical warfare) in toto but rather from one or more particular hobbyist points of view... Many misunderstandings can be avoided if hobbyists are sensitized to the fact that a wargame by itself is a big nothing. It's only particular human interests that render such models interesting, even entertaining !!

Let's face it gentlemen ! Hobbyists whose consistent, primary interest over time is to accurately simulate historical warfare are not exactly gamers. They're not really interested in "playing" or "gaming". They're historical warfare simulationists aiming at historically accurate re-enactments...

On the other hand, competitive strategy gaming is, fundamentally, an intensive and expansive intellectual activity that knows of no historical boundaries... Invariably, prevailing over a skilled (human ?) opponent requires considerable creativity and pushing the "game system" to the limit. Ahistorical or historically counterfactual results tend to be the rule rather than the exception, much to the dismay, even horror, of pure historical simulationists who seek re-enactment rather than intellectual victory over another (human ?) player...

To conclude, I would imagine that quite a few "grognards" would tear SSI's
wargames to shreds as far as historical warfare simulations go. I mean, there would be a long litany of historical fidelity shortcomings associated with both the wargames' engines and the scenarios native to them. Fair enough ! But, the very same engines could be utilized within the context of custom scenarios that are specifically designed for all-human play and not for easy victories against the invariably hapless "artificial intelligence" (AI)... The intellectual challenge could be considerable provided one wears the hat of a "strategy wargamer" rather than that of a "historical conflict simulationist".

I believe that "strategy wargaming" and "historical warfare re-enactments" just cannot be conceptually and procedurally reconciled and better be left as separate hobbyist approaches (possibly utilizing the very same wargames, nonetheless) !

Ok, then, next time someone tells "us" something about wargame X or Y it would be nice to expand into the kinds of wargaming that he thinks these wargames are well suited for, right ?

DETAIL vs. REALISM

Issues often arise touching upon various "historicity" and "realism" concerns. Here is an interesting two-paragraph excerpt from an article that appeared in the Games Domain Review almost a generation ago... The article entitled "Detail vs. Realism -- What this Means for PC Wargames" was authored by Bruce Geryk, somewhat known for his... "philosophical rants" !

BAN ABSTRACTION ?
===================

No one disputes that wargames are, above all, games. They are only a representation of their subject matter, rather than the real thing. As such, they are subject to a certain amount of abstraction. I think that this has bothered many wargamers to some extent, so that many of them clamor for games which are a more "realistic" representation of whatever combat they are attempting to depict. Wargame discussions are filled with exchanges about how a certain game could be made more "realistic". No matter how complex a game is, there are always people coming up with one more rule for what is, on its face, an almost risible attempt to create an electronic depiction of war. What usually happens is that instead of more "realism," all the games get is more "detail." The two things are completely different.

There is a well-worn cliché which illustrates what happens when a game tries to cater as much as possible to the "detail is realism" crowd. A number of years ago (1979), Simulations Publications Inc. (SPI), that now-defunct bastion of board wargaming, responded to what it thought was the will of the wargaming hobby by publishing a game called "Campaign for North Africa", which tried to model the North African campaign at such a small scale that it could physically incorporate as many aspects of the situation as humanly possible. I believe that there was a record kept of the number of "Fuel Points" consumed by each vehicle. It gave gamers exactly what they had asked for when they returned their "feedback" cards to SPI: an incredibly detailed monster wargame where nothing was left to abstraction. Of course, representing fuel available to a truck with "Fuel Points" is an abstraction in itself, but this didn't matter. While the game was a sophisticated design, it was completely unplayable. Some people blame this design attitude for dragging the company into bankruptcy.

Food for thought, eh ?

KRIEGSSPIEL OR JUST HISTORICALLY-THEMED ?

In the last few months, significant discussions regarding content historicity have taken place in the forum dedicated to PGF affairs. I believe the subject matter of these discussions to be applicable to content design targeting World War General (WWG) wargames and, quite likely, way beyond.

What Sort of "Tinkering" ?

At best, historically-themed wargames appear to aim at "tinkering" with reasonably well documented (in a military history sense) historical, armed conflict events (plus many other "things"); but they are subject to an extremely important, practical proviso: the "historically defensible" components underlying the "tinkering" are à-la-carte, not in toto.

Earlier under this topic:

THE "FETISHISM" OF SOME PART(S)

Quite a few hobbyists choose to almost exclusively focus only on a few wargame aspects in attempting to either find or induce "historicity". They aren't very much bothered by (many ?) other title aspects that may also be "historically questionable".

In the past, tremendous emphasis on "historically defensible" unit attribute specifications has been all the rage in the WWG hobby. The presumed historicity of such specifications has always been a priori. That is, the very same specifications were employed in diverse scenarios and campaigns. Nevertheless, such efforts did not change the very nature of the "tinkering" experience; it remained historically-themed, period.

The undisputed popularity of humans playing against wargames' AI Modules has often necessitated the adoption of content design approaches focusing on historicity for post facto effect. It's rather obvious, though, that the active participation of an AI module just maintains the play experience historically-themed in spades, to be very charitable...

Ok, ok, "everything" is "historically-themed"; more or less. So what ?

Enter the Kriegsspiel

Not "everything".

Earlier under this topic:

Historical War Simulations appear to aim at "objectively" recreating reasonably well documented (in a military history sense) historical, armed conflict events in toto.

There's another term for this sort of "gaming": Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK).

Retrograde Kriegsspiel

This is the "purest" HDK type. It single-mindedly focuses on just faithful historical recreation. There's absolutely no "playing" involved. Ironically, this sort of exercise is way easier to conduct with a board wargame. Computer wargames have their own... ideas about how battlefield events should be "allowed" to... occur.

Variational Kriegsspiel

Earlier under this topic:

SPECULATIVE OR COUNTERFACTUAL ?

Some hobbyists are willing to entertain notions of "alternative history", provided certain "safeguards" are in place. Thus, as long as a wargame provides "assurances" that play will by necessity generate speculative (i.e., "historically plausible") outcomes, such hobbyists are willing to "tolerate" such "deviations". Otherwise, the wargame title just amounts to a... toy that generates "plainly" counterfactual outcomes. Such outcomes, some hobbyists contend, are, well, ... rubbish.

Well, the preceding sets the stage for more "things" to come; sooner or later...

KRIEGSSPIEL: CHOOSE YOUR "ANGLES"

Board or Computer Wargame Play System ?

Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) exercises are best accommodated by board wargaming environments. One can do anything he pleases in support of historicity without having to... talk to some programmer about this or that play system feature.

Given the nature and orientation of these forums, from this point onward, I'll be exclusively focusing on computer wargaming environments.

Strategic, Operational or Tactical ?

Despite some past valiant attempts to design the "ultimate wargame" which would seamlessly combine strategic, operational and tactical elements, I know of no such successful, "heroic" venture. This necessitates that a content designer qua player explicitly chooses a few "angles" and learns to live with them, for better or worse.

Given the nature and orientation of these forums, from this point onward, I'll be exclusively focusing on computer wargaming environments which appear to be able to organizationally and functionally accommodate armed conflict involving army divisions, regiments, battalions and companies (and equivalent air and naval organizational designations).

Specifically:

a) No Army Group / Corps or organizationally higher military formation will be modeled as an independent, self-contained entity.

b) No Army Platoon or organizationally lower military formation will be modeled as an independent, self-contained entity.

For the purposes of this topic:

1) Play systems which appear to be particularly "friendly" to modeling divisional / regimental levels of warfare will be referred to as Operational.

2) Play systems which appear to be particularly "friendly" to modelling battalion / company levels of warfare will be referred to as Grand Tactical.

3) Play systems which appear to be equally "friendly" to modelling all of the preceding levels of warfare will be referred to as Operational-Tactical.

Which Computer Wargame ?

A) It's imperative for any HDK designer qua player to disabuse himself of any notion to the effect that this or that wargame title per se would magically accommodate his wargaming wishes and interests. Not so !

B) For starters, whatever wargame title is chosen for the task at hand better be able to serve as a key component of a Content Design & Play Platform (CD&PP). Self-contained (i.e., "canned") wargame titles should be summarily rejected.

C) Other "things" being equal, the more content design degrees of freedom and the more user-selectable play system features a CD&PP allows, the higher the chances of a happy fit between an HDK orientation and the CD&PP's employment in support of the former.

D) No CD&PP can ever a priori guarantee the success of some HDK exercise. It's all a matter of time-consuming, iterative experimentation.

KRIEGSSPIEL: OVERARCHING REALITIES

You're On Your Own

Developers / Publishers of computer wargame titles for profit have absolutely no incentive or reason to concern themselves with the desires / needs of the odd content designer focusing on conducting Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) exercises. Such offbeat interests aren't money makers; plain and simple !

Hobbyist Developers / Programmers of computer wargame titles aren't that different when it comes to supporting (or not) HDK interests. It's not a matter of money, of course. It's a matter of hobbyist interests and preferences per se. Invariably, hobbyist Developers / Programmers do enjoy playing historically-themed wargames but wish to go no further, thank you very much.

To make a potentially long recommendation short:

Take whatever computer wargame title you're considering to design and play HDK content under as an immutable given. Whatever HDK aspirations you may be entertaining will have to be based on your (hopefully extensive) historical and technical knowledge as well as dogged perseverance; no one else's !

But You're Your Own Guarantor

Earlier under this topic:

Some hobbyists are willing to entertain notions of "alternative history", provided certain "safeguards" are in place. Thus, as long as a wargame provides "assurances" that play will by necessity generate speculative (i.e., "historically plausible") outcomes, such hobbyists are willing to "tolerate" such "deviations".

When it comes to Variational HDK activities, you're the only hobbyist that can meaningfully provide "safeguards" and "assurances". For sure, you may discuss such matters at length with other hobbyists. But, unlike the above mentioned immutable givens, you're the... king of your very own HDK "universe". You're the ultimate guarantor and decision-maker.

You're Also Your Own Critic

Where do historically-themed wargaming experiences end and Variational HDK ones begin ? Well, they're in the eye of the beholder. Wait, who's that "beholder" though ? It's "you", of course.

At the conceptual level, hobbyists engaging in Variational HDK activities are "ultra-grognards". As such they have to struggle with the following antithetical notions and modeling approaches:

a) Modeling for representation verisimilitude.

b) Modeling for abstract representation.

My rather short recommendation:

Model for representation verisimilitude if you can. If not, go for abstract representation and don't look back. Don't be a self-sabotaging, doctrinaire "ultra-grognard".

KRIEGSSPIEL: STATIC REPRESENTATIONS & DYNAMICITY

Static Representations

The "world" of SSI's 5 Star General wargames and emulations thereof is no stranger to the occasional content designer exhibiting readily recognizable "grognard" traits regarding historicity. Such content may encompass one or more of the following:

a) Reasonably accurate map representations, the scale of which is explicitly defined.

b) Reasonably accurate historical unit representation snapshots, the actual participation of which is specific to this or that historical Order of Battle (OoB).

c) Best effort historical OoB representations reflecting the initial placement of units on the map.

d) "Objective" unit quantitative attributes.

The presence of one or more of the preceding elements doesn't necessarily transform a historically-themed exercise into a Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) one; far from it.

BUT

all of the above and much more are required to make HDK exercises meaningful. In particular:

1) The map scale.

2) The actual time duration represented by a turn.

3) The units' quantitative attributes

must be clearly seen as being tightly interconnected by sheer logical necessity and, consequently, acted upon. Unless this gets accomplished at the very outset, meaningful HDK experimentation can't even get off the ground.

Dynamicity

Hobbyists engaging in historically-themed wargaming exercises aren't particularly concerned with the historical meaningfulness of the dynamic goings on. On the other hand, hobbyists wishing to engage in Variational HDK activities better do so, in spades. There's no way an "ultra-grognard" worth his salt may uncritically accept all experimentation dynamics as historically plausible. To this effect, such a hobbyist will have to develop his own stringent evaluative criteria and be ready to constructively "intervene" in those instances where wargaming dynamics aren't of the HDK type but rather are just... gaming ones. That's where the content designer qua critic better shine or else !

KRIEGSSPIEL: VARIATIONAL ASPECTS

Each "ultra-grognard" bent on conducting Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) exercises has his very own interests and "angles"; possibly, prejudices as well... A number of time honored HDK variational aspects follow:

"Typical Conflicts"

Instead of focusing on some precisely circumscribed historical engagement, one may wish to consider "typical conflicts" somewhere on some front. Grand Tactical play systems are ideally suited for such variational exercises.

Orders of Battle

Often, historical Order of Battle (OoB) unit dispositions aren't perfectly known. In any case, one may wish to experiment with starting unit dispositions he might view as alternatively plausible.

Objectives

More often than not, historical military objectives are anything but clear. To this effect, one may wish to experiment with military objectives he might view as alternatively defensible.

Reinforcements & Resupply

One may wish to experiment with reinforcement and resupply patterns and constraints he might view as alternatively plausible.

Weather Conditions

One may wish to experiment with weather conditions he might view as alternatively plausible.

Commanders

To the extent that one or more decisions by historical commanders significantly impacted the conflict, one may wish to experiment with alternate decisions he might view as alternatively defensible.

KRIEGSSPIEL: ONLY HUMANS PLEASE

Keep That AI Module Away

It should be rather obvious that the participation AI Modules in Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) exercises is highly inappropriate. Besides the primitive, grossly historically counterfactual way they "play", AI Modules are simply completely deaf to the many requisite, "shoehorned" nuances and "house rules" underlying credible HDK exercises.

A Single, Solitary "Ultra-Grognard"

It's both eminently logical as well as highly realistic that, in almost all situations, HDK exercises are tended to by single, solitary "ultra-grognards". Among the many arduous tasks that a typical such hobbyist has to perform, his play-testing must be of the Auto-Hot-Seat (AHS) kind; out of sheer, practical necessity. Hobbyists familiar with this sort of "play" (especially within the context of board wargames) are ideally suited for meeting the challenge of taking turns in thinking and acting on behalf of two opposing "sides".

Two Collaborators

It's rather rare but quite satisfying to witness two "ultra-grognards" actively collaborating within the context of designing and playing content specifically intended to support HDK exercises. Undoubtedly, this represents the pinnacle of hobbyist HDK experience.

VERISIMILITUDE: HALF-TURNS

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they've no other option but to come to terms with an obvious verisimilitude failing urgently requiring some way out of it.

NAMELY:

The two Half-Turns comprising a full Turn model unit actions which, in real life, are simultaneous. Yet the model itself introduces the abstraction of two neatly divided, sequential phases during which each "side" takes turns... reigning supreme over the battlefield.

It's interesting to note that, within the context of SSI's 5 Star General wargames, many-a-player have complained about the play systems' inherent "unfairness" in that the "side" which always moves first is always assured of the weather conditions to prevail during the opponent's Half-Turn while the reverse cannot be taken for granted due to Turn-by-Turn weather condition probabilistic determination. This is a very good example of instances where HDK points of view directly clash with players playing to... win ! Yeah, there're wargames per se but also wargaming points of view / interests.

VERISIMILITUDE: GOD-LIKE COMMANDERS

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they've no other option but to come to terms with another obvious verisimilitude failing urgently requiring some way out of it.

NAMELY:

Content Design & Play Platforms (CD&PPs) presuppose human play-testing as well as playing. A human leading the fortunes of a "side" is god-like. He knows everything there's to know about his "side" and is blessed with instantaneous and 100% faithful execution of his orders.

In real life, no battlefield commander has perfect knowledge of his "side's" situation. Moreover, there're no guarantees that his orders will be followed without any "local" modifications to them or, worse, at all. To boot, he may just not be the only "friendly" decision-maker independently impacting the course of some battle.

In theory, CD&PPs could be programmed to introduce uncertainties regarding facts and the fidelity of order execution. Similarly, more than one "allied" human player could be resorted to to independently be issuing orders. In reality, this sort of setup might be feasible in, say, the US Pentagon. When it comes to hobbyist HDK exercises though, it's more like a... pipe dream.

Bottom line: "ultra-grognards" rejoice; you've got no practical choice; other than accept the requisite abstraction, of course !

VERISIMILITUDE: OF HEXES & MEN

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they better come to terms with a notoriously troublesome verisimilitude conundrum urgently requiring some... brave resolution.

NAMELY:

HDK exercises presuppose the existence of maps, the geographical scale of which better be precisely defined. This requirement has always been an integral part of "grognard"... introductory instruction manuals. So far so good.

The problem has to do with the men (and their equipment) who will be occupying or going through hexes. Representational realism dictates that unit sizes be at most commensurate with hex capacity.

Consequently, some unit size upper limit has to be observed at all times. Often, the adopted solution entails putting limits on how many units can be stacked together on a single hex. However, this is only a superficial fix. Self-contained units come in all sizes. To this effect, focusing on each unit's Strength Factors may be way preferable. By the way, road / rail capacity limitations introduce extra challenges when it comes to movement. Certain play systems have attempted to address capacity-related problems by allowing self-contained units to be broken down into (or reconstituted from) smaller-size, constituent units under various conditions.

Different challenges emerge in situations in which a self-contained unit is too small in the context of hex capacity. Of course, hex capacity itself is more than adequate in this case. But, important battlefield features may easily get out of representational kilter. For example, it's not very realistic that a unit sporting 1 Strength Factor would be exercising a Zone of Control (ZoC) the effectiveness of which is identical to that of a unit sporting 10 Strength Factors...

VERISIMILITUDE: SCALE MATTERS

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they should come to explicit terms with a frequently talked about verisimilitude challenge urgently demanding very hard work and single-minded fixity of purpose.

NAMELY:

A) As stated earlier under this topic, it's assumed that no self-contained units represent military formations larger than a division and smaller than a company. To this effect, the content designer will have to first decide between TWO (2) self-contained unit scale fundamental options:

1) Division / Brigade / Regiment
2) Battalion / Company

B) Once the above decision is made, an "appropriate", available, computer-enabled Content Design & Play Platform (CD&PP) must be chosen. Clearly, this selection hinges on the content designer's overall critical understanding of the chosen platform's underlying play system and its relevant versatility.

As an aside, in my opinion, 5 Star General play systems and their emulations are particularly accommodating of the Battalion / Company option.

C) The next decision pertains to the time duration represented by a Full Turn.

Examples:

ONE (1) Day for Division / Brigade / Regiment scale.
TWO (2) Hours for Battalion / Company scale.

D) The map scale and self-contained unit attribute iterative specification exercise will be significantly affected by all prior decisions, of course.

The resultant map scale choice will have to accommodate space and combat-related constraints as well as ones emanating from unit movement capabilities during a Full Turn.

In some way, the iterative specification exercise outlined under the present point is bound to serve as an "audit" of the degree of seamlessness exhibited by all decisions mentioned herein taken in concert; viewed as a (hopefully) mutually supporting and internally validating ensemble, that is.

VERISIMILITUDE: STRENGTH FACTOR STATUS

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they should come to explicit terms with a foundational verisimilitude challenge urgently demanding abstract resolution.

NAMELY:

What does a unit Strength Factor represent ?

It's a veritable, unavoidable abstraction. Given a representationally self-contained unit sporting multiple Strength Factors (SFs), the concept arbitrarily segments the unit into identical components which are organizationally indistinguishable from one another.

What is the meaning of a unit Strength Factor's Status ?

Full Combat Readiness: It's an abstract yardstick which facilitates quantitative comparisons with other unit SF statuses.

Reduced Combat Readiness: It's an abstract reduction of the unit SF's combat capabilities as compared to it enjoying Full Combat Readiness status.

Disruption / Suppression: It's an extreme case of Reduced Combat Readiness whereby the unit SF is rendered incapable of meaningfully engaging the enemy for a period of time.

Retreat: It's an abstract representation of a unit SF engaging in an orderly retreat in lockstep with all of its other companion unit SFs.

Fully Provisioned: It's an abstract yardstick which facilitates quantitative comparisons with the unit CF experiencing less than ideal supply situations.

Partially Provisioned: It's an abstract reduction of the unit SF's supplies as compared to it enjoying Fully Provisioned status.

Spotted / Hidden: It's an abstract (invariably, Boolean) characterization of the enemy's knowledge / ignorance of the unit SF's precise geographical location.

Elimination: It's an abstraction of a unit SF being permanently removed from the battlefield. From a verisimilitude standpoint, it's best that the term "Destruction" is scrupulously avoided.

VERISIMILITUDE: LEADERSHIP QUALITY

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they should come to explicit terms with a serious verisimilitude challenge urgently demanding abstract resolution.

NAMELY:

Leadership quality is, well, a... qualitative concept. In addition, it attaches to individual actors.

Content Design & Play Platforms (CD&PPs) are logical, quantitative constructs. Hence, a mechanism is required to express leadership quality in quantitative terms thereby effectively incorporating it into the CD&PP of choice.

How does one rank leadership quality ?

The general idea is to establish an indexed scale. Positive integer values will represent superior leadership quality compared to some preconceived and eventually adopted "norm" (value ZERO (0)). The opposite will be the case for negative integer values.

How does one represent the effects of leadership quality ?

Positive integer values will enhance a self-contained unit's ability to fight well. The opposite will be the case for negative integer values.

"Fighting well" entails a few rather obvious aspects. Inflicting more casualties on and causing more disorganization to the enemy immediately come to mind. Similarly, incurring fewer casualties and retaining fighting unit coherence in the face of enemy superiority could be directly tied to superior unit leadership quality.

VERISIMILITUDE: MORALE

To the extent that "ultra-grognards" elect some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests, they should come to explicit terms with yet another serious verisimilitude challenge urgently demanding abstract resolution.

NAMELY:

Morale is, well, a... qualitative concept attaching to collectivities of humans engaging in warfare.

Content Design & Play Platforms (CD&PPs) are logical, quantitative constructs. Hence, a mechanism is required to express morale in quantitative terms thereby effectively incorporating it into the CD&PP of choice.

How does one rank morale ?

The general idea is to establish an indexed scale. Positive integer values will represent superior morale compared to some preconceived and eventually adopted "norm" (value ZERO (0)). The opposite will be the case for negative integer values.

How does one represent the effects of morale ?

Positive integer values will enhance a "side" units' ability to fight well. The opposite will be the case for negative integer values.

Once again, "fighting well" entails a few rather obvious aspects. Inflicting more casualties on and causing more disorganization to the enemy immediately come to mind. Similarly, incurring fewer casualties and retaining fighting unit coherence in the face of enemy superiority could be directly tied to superior unit morale.

Morale should be specifically tied to units' propensity to retreat or surrender. Moreover, it should be a factor impacting all of a "side's" units across the board; reason being, fighting men invariably form their own opinions about how a battle / war is progressing (or not) thereby being psychologically impacted upon correspondingly.

The modeling approach most likely to succeed here is one where morale is directly tied to metrics applicable to the battle / war across the board (e.g. objectives attained or lost, casualties inflicted or incurred, weather and provisioning conditions etc).

DETAILS: "CHROME" vs. "DIRT"

It's time this topic's scope is expanded to include challenges arising out of conceptually quantitative matters.

"Ultra-grognards" electing some hex-based, turn-based play system to enable their Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) content design and play interests have always been struggling with the need to quantify warfare elements which are intrinsically qualitative.

For the most part, "historical wargamers" are considerably more willing to adopt "reasonable" levels of abstraction to meet the aforesaid challenges. Nevertheless, they are faced with their own "thorny problems" as well. Namely, many warfare elements which are quantifiable in principle require abstract resolution in that there's a limit to how much detail can be mathematically modeled without turning the play system into an unwieldy, incomprehensible behemoth...

A Professor Advises...

One of the towering academic figures in 20th century probability theory used to... admonish his graduate students as follows:

Remember, a probability of a probability of a probability is STILL a probability !! Watch out that you do not fall victim to... cascading intellectual masturbation.

Paraphrasing...

Remember, the average of a bunch of averages each one of which is itself an average is STILL an average !! Watch out that you do not fall victim to... cascading modeling masturbation.

"Chrome" or "Dirt" ?

Modeling "chrome" reflects a wargame author's desire to progressively augment a wargame's play system with warfare elements which he considers to be important. At some point in the process, the wargame's author will either "wisely" stop or continue unabated. From that latter point onward, the wargame's play system will be the beneficiary of layers of excessive "chrome", that is, "dirt" !

It should be rather obvious that the above dichotomy can't be objectively defended. One author's "chrome" feature is another's "dirt" feature and vice versa. Also, players invariably have their own views on such matters based on some subjectively perceived point situated inside their "realism" / "playability" lattices.

WARFARE SCALE: CONSEQUENT ABSTRACTION CHALLENGES

Abstraction ?

Some "historical wargamers" are willing to accept "reasonable" levels of abstraction aimed at addressing conceptually quantitative aspects applicable to the representation of a particular warfare scale. Nevertheless, quite a few warfare elements which are quantifiable in principle require significant abstract resolution in that there's a limit to how much detail can be mathematically modeled without turning the play system into an unwieldy, incomprehensible behemoth...

Is It Acceptable to "ME" ?

Aside from the routine modeling difficulties Developers / Programmers invariably face, the most significant stumbling block having to do with the necessity to mathematically abstract comes, perhaps, from the audience. Post

I Want It Both Ways
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6949

outlines the... psychological factors underlying the discomfort often felt by a sizable portion of a wargame title's audience.

Exclusive Focus: Operational-Tactical Scale

This topic exclusively focuses on wargame play systems modeling Operational-Tactical Scale warfare. In particular, it does NOT concern itself with unit representations higher than Division / Regiment and lower than Battalion / Company. Consequently, Grand Tactical scale is as "low" as one gets...

To this effect, in the sequel, I shall absolutely NOT be paying any attention to:

a) The gazillion particularities and details that wargamers fond of playing platoon and / or first person shooter scale wargames... drool over; ditto for miniatures-style visual depictions !

b) War materiel production / distribution economics and logistics as well as the availability of appropriately trained manpower. Such matters properly belong to the realm of Strategic Scale wargaming (NOT to be confused with Strategy Wargaming which, for all intents and purposes, is manifestly ahistorical, any historical "themes" encountered notwithstanding).

SUPPLIES: REPRESENTATION CHALLENGES

Beans, Bullets, Bandages, Fuel & Spare Parts

Armed conflict presupposes the initial availability and, hopefully, continual resupply of essential provisions which are vital to units' battlefield effectiveness.

In principle, food stuffs, ammunition, medical supplies, fuel and spare parts are quantifiable. Moreover, one could go on differentiating such supplies by type ad nauseam...

No, One's Got to Stop...

Mercifully, Grand Tactical warfare scale puts a limit to how much detail one should be introducing or encountering when it comes to the explicit differentiation of supplies.

More generally, "serious" modeling within the context of Historical Wargaming invariably depends on taking advantage of some suitable Content Design & Play Platform (CD&PP). It may very well happen that the CD&PP features play elements appropriate to warfare scales "lower" than Grand Tactical (e.g., Line of Sight (LoS)). This does NOT mean that the content designer has to "use" them. In other words, a certain warfare scale's "chrome" is nothing but another warfare scale's "dirt" !

Points: Take Them Or Leave the Model !

For warfare scales NOT "lower" than Grand Tactical, each category of supplies should be quantified on the basis of abstract points. In fact, NOT all such categories need be explicitly modeled. For instance, explicit representations of medical supplies or spare parts may very well amount to being "dirt" rather than "chrome".

Points: Consumption Rates & Effectiveness Implications

A hobbyist can either accept or reject in toto the modeling of supplies via abstract points. However, acceptance does NOT mean lack of attention as to how exactly such points are consumed and how their availability affects units' battlefield effectiveness. Play systems should be very carefully designed to account for such "things" in a logically consistent manner which explicitly takes into account geographical and time scale specificities.

RESUPPLY: SPATIAL THORNINESS

Time Honored... Failures

Historically, many a wargame designer have attempted to blend combat and supply transport operations over the map on a parallel representation footing. In my opinion, for warfare scales NOT "lower" than Grand Tactical, such attempts have invariably yielded most unfortunate playing results. Putting it more concretely, tanks and supply trucks moving all over the same map are anything but mutually helpful when it comes to actual play. Au contraire !

Enemy Zones of Control: How Porous ?

Quite often, wargame designers have introduced a certain level of abstraction by rendering friendly units' resupply subject to the existence of "map corridors" free of enemy unit Zones of Control (ZoC). Such approaches invariably gloss over the logic underpinning the relative effectiveness of such "obstacles" to resupply. For example, a unit sporting ONE (1) Strength Factor (SF) cannot possibly be nearly as successful in blocking enemy resupply as one sporting TEN (10) SFs...

Resupply Corridors: How Believable ?

Not all resupply corridors are, well, representationally believable. Imagining supply trucks traversing some road or clear terrain is one thing. BUT, such imagination is stretched thin when it comes to supply trucks "effortlessly" traversing terrain such as mountains and swamps...

Map Edges: Unavoidable Necessity

Play system design challenges relating to warfare phenomena manifesting themselves right at a map's edge aren't new at all. Units voluntarily entering / retreating from / to "somewhere beyond" the map's edges or forced to have been subjected to all sorts of "entry / exit" rules. When it comes to resupply though, map edges have been treated as abstract extension conduits of resupply corridors; by logical necessity...

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This topic's scope coverage is far from being exhausted. However, any future additions to the topic's contents by me will be appearing elsewhere on the Web.

As far as my contributions under this topic go, well, this is the end of the line !