Does it matter if we don't finish the game?

[Chad]

John

I don't necessarily disagree. However, I think they are only suitable for multiplayer games with one player operating the program. My wargaming friend and tried them some years ago but found that, with only two players, the need for one player to input the information to progress the game was not a satisfying experience as regards playing the game. Another friend runs a monthly multiplayer game using computer software and this leaves the players free to focus on the table itself and gives a very enjoyable game.

[Ithoriel]

If computer moderated games work for people then why not.

Personally, if a computer is going to run the game I'd sooner go the whole hog and play an actual computer game. Beautiful and varied terrain, ready "painted" figures, no storage problems. A no-brainer, surely.

I like dice for the same reason I like little lead men. It's a tactile, analogue experience in an increasingly digital world.

Do we sometimes often get some aspect of the rules wrong? Of course. Do we care? Not at all, providing it doesn't skew the game to badly and everyone has fun. I don't think we've ever got anything significant wrong.

Anyway,

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools"

[John Cook]

Well, Stu, I use them with two players all the time, and over the past two years for a lot of solo games too.  Having to input information is not much of an impediment and since I bought a tablet with touch screen you can do it at the point of the 'action'.  It is much more portable than any lap-top and no more onerous than having to consult paper rules really.  I understand people like to use dice but I can do that with Snakes and Ladders if I want to.  Good luck with your quest to find the perfect rules.   

[Shapur II]

I doubt that there are any perfect rules.  If only because we cannot know exactly what transpired on the battlefield. I think that we all have perceptions based upon our reading of the materials available to us.  From that understanding we develop a model that replicates the factors we feel most important. 

I'll continue on my quest. 

 

[Chad]

I think it fair to say that the plethora of rules available at variable game scales shows that there are no perfect rules and only represent the authors view of the period, as you indicated. Different but not necessarily perfect. No disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules. Good luck.

[Gwydion]

I think the plethora of rules shows many things:
Boredom - 'let's try something different' (usually only cosmetic)
Mechanism fad/fashions (the PIP for example, or the 'card driven')
Amnesia - how many clones of 1960s chuck a bucket of dice and throw another bucket of 'saving rolls' have there been?
Different interpretations of what we want to game - tactical? grand tactical/operational? Top up, top down design? No relevance to reality at all - it's only a game?(the vogue du jour). A mind numbing attempt to simulate every activity on a battlefield? - not possible and ineffably tedious.

Searching for/designing a rule set that produces a representation true to your vision of what Napoleonic warfare looked like and which allows players to make the mistakes and achieve the coups real commanders did is an admirable goal. Just don't expect the majority (or even a sizeable minority) of gamers to play them forever as their sole late 18th early 19th century set. They'll get bored and move on. 'Hey why don't we throw a dice for every man to hit and then you can throw a die for each hit and see if you dodged/survived somehow? That'll be cool!'

[Ithoriel]

I think the plethora of rules shows many things:

- a raft of new periods and places being explored
- a whole slew of new mechanisms being tried
- different levels of action being explored
- that it's possible to have multiple sets of rules for a period and remember enough of the basics to play a game without undue reference to the rules.
- IDIC

[Gwydion]

Ah! I see you're a cockeyed optimist!
I suspect we're all falling on our face.

[Ithoriel]

Lets face it, hobbies are simply a way of spending a little of the time between now and our inevitable demise pleasantly.

You can be optimistic or pessimistic but evidence suggests optimists live longer so if I'm an optimist I get to spend more time enjoying my hobbies.

"I don't believe there's a power in the 'Verse can stop Kaylee me from being cheerful,"

[Gwydion]

Of course Professor Don Moore of Berkeley Haas School of Business found that optimism improves persistence but not outcomes.
So you may live longer trying to to enjoy your hobby, doesn't guarantee us realists won't have a better experience.

[Chris Pringle]

This has proved to be one of my most popular "Reflections on Wargaming" to date, generating scores of comments. I am grateful to all of you who took the trouble to respond, whether at thoughtful length (like Steve J in his comment at foot of the blog post itself) or with pithy brevity (OSHIROmodels, "Nope!", on LAF). It seems only right that I should in turn summarise all these responses. I have added this summary to the original blog post here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html

[steve_holmes_11]

Excellent summary, which (I think) really adds to the original blog post.

[Shapur II]

No disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules.

I just have to avoid those pesky normans and their cows and the killer rabbit...

[Shapur II]

No disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules

None taken, I also meant to say that My Holy Grail might not be what other's seek.  Only a different view of the battlefield which. "in my view" better reflects combat in the period.  There are many rule sets  that work to allow the player to be Napoleon, If I was to more narrowly define my focus it is those rules that attempt to combine Napoleon's task with a bridge commanders that fail utterly.  ymmv

[Shapur II]

Just don't expect the majority (or even a sizeable minority) of gamers to play them forever as their sole late 18th early 19th century set.

No doubt they will not.  I'm filling a niche for myself.  Regardless of how (un)successful. my ideas may prove they only reflect a small part of the whole.  That is because, I see us as trying to do too much on the table top and that no one set of rules can capture decisions and command at the Army level and the decisions of brigade and battalion commanders at the pointy end.  In my view, they are, and should be different things.

Some great games can and have been made that reflect this reality.  Grande Armee, Baccus' 6mm Polemous series amongst others.

I just cant find the other end of the spear.  Where are the rules that reflect the pointy end that are somewhere above what Lt Sharpe has for lunch and below Napoleon's subordinates screwing up a battle beceause he has a stomach bug?

[Shapur II]

Lets face it, hobbies are simply a way of spending a little of the time between now and our inevitable demise pleasantly.

You can be optimistic or pessimistic but evidence suggests optimists live longer so if I'm an optimist I get to spend more time enjoying my hobbies.

Optimists live longer, Agree!.  I'm optimistic that I can find a solution to my pessimistic view of the state of the rules available?  The hobby has never been better off. More and better vendors, fora that enable discussions such as these.  When has it ever been better?

It's all playing with toy soldiers in the end.  The fact that is, as I'm retired, I get to play with, and think about toy soldiers most of the time, horrendous weather and trucker convoys not withstanding.  How can that be bad?   I'm not about to worry myself into ending play time anytime soon.

[paulr]

This has proved to be one of my most popular "Reflections on Wargaming" to date, generating scores of comments. I am grateful to all of you who took the trouble to respond, whether at thoughtful length (like Steve J in his comment at foot of the blog post itself) or with pithy brevity (OSHIROmodels, "Nope!", on LAF). It seems only right that I should in turn summarise all these responses. I have added this summary to the original blog post here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html

Thanks Chris for prompting an interesting discussion and thanks to all the contributors

and as Steve said

Excellent summary, which (I think) really adds to the original blog post.