Strategic Wargame Design Dr Lewis Pulsipher Courses Pulsipher

(Strategic) Wargame Design Dr. Lewis Pulsipher Courses. Pulsipher. Games. Com

Strategy versus Tactics • It’s a matter of scale • Time Scales: – Tactical: a scale of seconds/minutes, hours, or days at most – Strategic: a scale of days, weeks, even months or years • Distance Scales: – Tactical: yards up to a few miles – Strategic: dozens to hundreds of miles, sometimes even more • Unit Scales: – Tactical: individuals or small units (ships, squads, platoons, even battalions and regiments) – Strategic: divisions, corps, armies, fleets

Battle, War, and Conquest • Joe Angiolillo’s taxonomy of war related games: – Games about war – Wargames – Simulations • Games about war – – – no connection with reality symmetric no variation in terrain and units no representation of actual or even fictional events no attempt to tell a story • Games such as Conflict, Risk and Chess fall into this category.

• Wargames – asymmetric – variation in terrain and units – real or fictional event is depicted – there is an explicit story involved (remember "story" is part of his. STORY) • Simulations – wargames taken to an extreme – term papers with board and pieces and no concern for play balance – more or less forces particular outcomes in order to match history

My categorization: War games • The heart is economy • Ultimate objective is to improve your economic capacity and destroy the enemy's • For two players, occasionally for more than two • Cover years or even centuries • Territory usually equates to additional forces, following the age-old principle that land equals wealth • More likely to use areas (like a normal map) • Generally large-scale and strategic

Battle games • No economy, instead an Order of Appearance/Battle • Ultimate objective is to destroy opposing units because they cannot get more than scheduled • Intermediate objective (e. g. territorial, or even “capture the king”) as a victory avoids much of the tedium of destroying units • Almost always for two players • Usually cover a few days to a year or so • Territory is only useful for the terrain and geopolitical implications • Usually maneuver-focused, and often use a hex or square grid • Generally smaller scale and tactical/grand tactical – but History of the World is also a battle game!

Conquest Games • Can be either war or battle game, usually war • Are usually in Joe’s “Games about war” category • Very few "realistic" or real world restrictions on what you can do--"freedom to do whatever you want" • Attacker can always get the upper hand (odds favor those who attack-attack), so it’s not strategically wise to play defensively • Usually symmetrical • Typically large scale • Combat typically very simple • Particularly attractive type of game related to war for those who aren’t hobby gamers

Models • War and battle games are models. They try to reflect some reality • Models MUST simplify – reality is too complex • Where is the line between model and simulation? – Simulations are models – Simulations may try to model causes rather than just effects – Simulations value the model more than the game • Games that aren’t models are abstractions – Even if there’s the atmosphere of a story attached

Economies • Accumulation economy – You can build units regardless of how many you already have – That is, existing units cost you nothing – no maintenance – Risk, Axis & Allies • Maintenance economy – You must pay for existing units before building more – Prevents accumulation of very large armies – Diplomacy’s extreme supply center economy (you can build any unit as long as you can maintain it)

Pseudo-economy • In games that depict a single battle there is rarely an economy, but there can be order-ofbattle based objectives that introduce something like an economy • For example, a side may get a few reinforcing units if they can take a particular road junction • This pseudo-economy can occur in games that have a regular economy, as well. • Chess promotion, checkers “kinging”

Advantages of Designing Strategic Games • No one telling your “nuts and bolts” are bad because you disagree with them about penetration power! • You don’t have to worry about exact numbers • On the other hand it’s even harder to model for cause rather than effect • But modeling for effect is just as educational, at this scale

Purposes of Wargames • • Training Learn history Teach history Geography etc. [Greg’s “where’s the German city” answer] • And entertainment

The big Dichotomy • Game players want control – They want to feel they succeed or fail on their own merits • Real war is a “mess” – “For want of a nail. . . ” • The two are not compatible! • Conquest games are all about control – no “realistic” mess required • Simulations MUST reflect at least a portion of the “mess” • But not all of it (or as much as games can do), because it would be frustrating to game players

Commander’s Problems Both strategic and tactical • Command Control – failure of leaders (to do what they're told) – failure of communication (doesn't get thru) – failure of understanding (when it does get thru) • Uncertainty – of enemy intentions – of the real strength of units of both sides – of the number of enemy units

• Fog of War (can't see beyond your own LOS, smoke) – Where is the enemy – (Sometimes) where are your own units – Common in video games, where it's the natural way things work • Morale and failure of morale – Fear of Death – Fear of Failure (pressure) – Tends to dominate many miniatures rulesets

Some ways to represent these problems • • • Block games “Activations” Upside down units Chit draws Team play (miniatures) – Especially with written orders • Computer intervention • BUT DON’T OVERDO this representation, or the game becomes the “mess”

Tabletop wargames are nothing like reality • And in any case it will never really feel like the real thing • Those who emphasize “you are there” are fooling themselves. Then again, they wouldn’t want to really be there… • Video games can come closer to the visceral feeling, but often are more abstraction than model