Replaying scenarios: pros and cons?

Started by Chris Pringle, 28 June 2022, 01:51:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

John Cook

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 09 July 2022, 08:59:05 PMSo your computer moderated systems are purely deterministic or has a randomiser that you cannot see?

The computer rules I use are stochastic, I suppose, insofar as although results are determined by a host of variables – ground, weather, wind, weapons, ammunition, morale, fatigue, chain of command, commander competence etc – if you repeated the same move over and over again you would never get exactly the same results.  So they are able to take uncertainty into account and do include a degree of randomness but nothing like the extremes that you get with dice. 
I know that in the ancient world dice were used for other things but they are essentially a gambling tool, and have been for a very long time indeed, where everything is stacked against the player and that is my objection to them. 
On the other hand, although I also know that chance can play a part in war.  An unlucky soldier steps on a mine, gets hit by a stray bullet, that sort of thing, but generally speaking, luck plays a minor part in warfare, in comparison to the casino, or the wargames table. 
Warfare is a matter of calculations made on the basis of all the available information, measured risk and application of skill.  Dice require no skill and introduce a level of chance that I don't like.
Whether you use dice or not is entirely up to you and I'm not on a crusade to chance minds in this context.  I really don't care, to be honest.  I just don't like 'em 

Chris Pringle

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 09 July 2022, 08:59:05 PMwhat are we really seeking to do during a refight and at what level - tactically, operationally or strategically. 

We all get different things out of our games in different degrees. For me, first and foremost wargames are about making decisions. (Preferably, at least one interesting and challenging decision every turn.) The point of my refights is to present players with the situation a historical general confronted at or around the start of a historical battle, then let them make their own decisions and see how those pan out. Thus, as Paul rightly says,
Quote from: paulr on 10 July 2022, 11:12:12 AMBy playing different level refights we can explore all three questions in different ways

Of course it is impossible to reproduce the fog of war exactly - at least, impossible given the 'full disclosure' approach I use, where both sides know exactly what troops are in play and the victory conditions and time limits are clear. But it is still possible to introduce some of that fog by means of variable arrival times or locations, command and control handicaps of different kinds, etc. And indeed the vagaries of the dice.

Quote from: John Cook on 10 July 2022, 01:23:01 PMgenerally speaking, luck plays a minor part in warfare, in comparison to the casino, or the wargames table. 
Warfare is a matter of calculations made on the basis of all the available information, measured risk and application of skill.
Luck plays enough of a part in war that Clausewitz made it one leg of his 'trinity':
https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/TrinityTeachingNote.htm
He evidently found the casino a rather useful comparison, as he routinely makes analogies with card games and gambling with incomplete information.

John Cook

Quote from: Chris Pringle on 10 July 2022, 09:32:06 PMLuck plays enough of a part in war that Clausewitz made it one leg of his 'trinity':
https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/TrinityTeachingNote.htm
He evidently found the casino a rather useful comparison, as he routinely makes analogies with card games and gambling with incomplete information.
What was it Rothfels said about 'On War'?  Something to the effect that Clausewitz was more quoted than read. 
My copy is a 1968 Penguin edition but I can't honestly say that I read and comprehended everything he wrote, a lot of which is, as Montgomery said, "hard to understand" but when Clausewitz talked about chance, what he meant, clearly I think, was the dangers inherent in war represented by uncertainty. 
He goes on to say that war is a matter of calculation of odds and probabilities based on what is known.   This is, it seems to me, to be a matter of common sense and is merely facing reality.
It is very far from chucking a handful of dice and hoping for the best. 
Sun Tzu wrote that "if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles."

Chris Pringle

Quote from: John Cook on 11 July 2022, 03:53:50 AMWhat was it Rothfels said about 'On War'?  Something to the effect that Clausewitz was more quoted than read. 
<snip> what he meant, clearly I think, was the dangers inherent in war represented by uncertainty. 
He goes on to say that war is a matter of calculation of odds and probabilities based on what is known.   This is, it seems to me, to be a matter of common sense and is merely facing reality.
It is very far from chucking a handful of dice and hoping for the best. 

I can honestly claim to have read C more than I quote him:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2021/03/clausewitz-1799-vol2-is-published.html
Yes, he's talking about uncertainty. He also describes an army as a machine of 10,000 parts, any of which can malfunction unpredictably at any time.

In my view, dice in a wargame serve several functions. They represent that unpredictable friction. The uncertainty they introduce compensates for the player's perfect knowledge. And purely in game terms, they help to make the situation change (sometimes surprisingly) each turn and create new choices for the players every turn.

It is possible to design a game such that the role luck plays is in appropriate proportion and the best plan, well executed, will still generally win. I'd say my games too are "very far from chucking a handful of dice and hoping for the best".

John Cook

I haven't read any of Clausewitz's campaign studies. I have only read his philosophical study 'On War', which was quite enough.  Rules are only satisfactory if they meet the perceptions of the user, which yours do clearly.   I have never found any dice-driven rules satisfactory as they seem to depend too much on blind luck which, in my view, overly counteracts skill (and incompetence for that matter).  The use of dice, or not, is not mandatory. I just don't like them.

Steve J

I re-fight historical battles, especially using BBB, to help gain a better understanding of why the actions tended to go the way they did. This has certainly been the case when playing the BBB ACW, APW & FPW scenarios, linked or otherwise. So I would read up on the battle, play the game and then we would chew over the fat at then end. Very often you really appreciate the effect of terrain in how much it helps or hinders your troops, dependent upon wheter they are attacking or defending.

Having played the scenario as per the 'historical deployments', there can be valid cases of some 'what if's?' in terms of deployments, slightly altered plans of attack etc to see what might have happened, given some of the plausible options that the commanders had at their disposal on the day or days preceding the battle.

I hope this makes sense as I'm still a little fuzzy with covid :( ?

Chris Pringle

Quote from: John Cook on 11 July 2022, 10:21:40 AMRules are only satisfactory if they meet the perceptions of the user, which yours do clearly.   I have never found any dice-driven rules satisfactory as they seem to depend too much on blind luck which, in my view, overly counteracts skill (and incompetence for that matter).  The use of dice, or not, is not mandatory. I just don't like them.
Entirely a matter of personal preference, and I entirely respect yours, John.

Quote from: Steve J on 11 July 2022, 11:47:59 AMI hope this makes sense as I'm still a little fuzzy with covid :( ?
Made sense to me, Steve!

paulr

Quote...
I hope this makes sense as I'm still a little fuzzy with covid :( ?

Definitely made sense to me Steve :)
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

hammurabi70

QuoteI hope this helps address your real inquiry
In the use of the term 'real' I wanted to override any implication on Chris's blog that I was just making a cynical observation.  Perhaps the extent to which this might apply depends on the rules in use.

QuoteThe computer rules I use are stochastic, I suppose, insofar as although results are determined by a host of variables – ground, weather, wind, weapons, ammunition, morale, fatigue, chain of command, commander competence etc – if you repeated the same move over and over again you would never get exactly the same results.  So they are able to take uncertainty into account and do include a degree of randomness but nothing like the extremes that you get with dice. 
So if I understand this correctly you have a list of variables, rather akin to the old WRG laundry lists, but instead of giving an exact +1, or -1, the software will allocate a random amount between, say, +0.5 to +1.5 according to the rules written into the software?  You feel that this limits the impact of the variables to satisfactory limits in a way that dice rolling does not.  As you say, it is a matter of personal taste.

I guess that the point of convergence for us all is defining what level of variability is satisfactory.  I have a concern that too much of the time the results tend to be a product of who rolls better dice but then one might quote Barker in that the role of the general is to ensure the odds favour his own troops as much as is possible. What are the key decisions that the general can influence and how do we measure them and their impact?

Chris Pringle

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 13 July 2022, 02:32:37 PMIn the use of the term 'real' I wanted to override any implication on Chris's blog that I was just making a cynical observation. 
Apologies for wrongly imputing cynicism. Not that I mind a bit of healthy cynicism, but I appreciate that you were offering a serious and sensible question.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 13 July 2022, 02:32:37 PMI guess that the point of convergence for us all is defining what level of variability is satisfactory.  I have a concern that too much of the time the results tend to be a product of who rolls better dice but then one might quote Barker in that the role of the general is to ensure the odds favour his own troops as much as is possible. What are the key decisions that the general can influence and how do we measure them and their impact?

Personally, I want there to be enough variability to throw occasional spanners into players' works. Then you find out whether their plan is robust enough to deal with said spanners. Players who anticipate the possibility of things going wrong and eg maintain reserves, cover flanks, etc etc, will do better than those who don't. These are real-world-type decisions that can be rewarded (or punished) on the tabletop.

pierre the shy

Quote from: Chris Pringle on 13 July 2022, 11:12:14 PMPersonally, I want there to be enough variability to throw occasional spanners into players' works. Then you find out whether their plan is robust enough to deal with said spanners. Players who anticipate the possibility of things going wrong and eg maintain reserves, cover flanks, etc etc, will do better than those who don't. These are real-world-type decisions that can be rewarded (or punished) on the tabletop.

Totally agree with that comment Chris.....as I said further up the thread in my Graf Spee anology any refight the actual events will start to vary as soon as the game starts, so being able to put in "spanners" in the works will introduce real world type events to make the players think about what they are doing and the need to act accordingly.

For example with the Graf Spee you would only have a limited amount of ammuntion on-board, so if you use lots in fighting an action like River Plate you will need to either return to a port that can resupply you or have a resupply ship (like the Altmark) available to replenish from "somewhere in the South Atlantic".       
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
we are not now that strength which in old days
moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are.