• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Topic: Combat Simulator?

"Early role playing games discovered that there were a great many things that could be done, and attempted to do them all. The wargaming roots of the hobby brought the tension between gamism and simulationism that exists there into the new game designs" from this article: HERE.

RPG Theory If you look here you see a lot said about "coherence".

This is all going somewhere, and I'll post the "somewhere" at some point that isn't 3 AM.

Edit: Step on Up

All of these articles are written with regard to RPGs, but I thought some of it was pretty pertinent to what I like about Defiance. Specifically the points balance and the tight focus of the game.

Here's a quote from the last link above: "Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without Situation happening, or about to."

Now this is written with regard to RPGs. In a skirmish game, the Situation is a small scale close quarters combat. This is why to me, acres of fluff text and "wow I like the setting" are meaningless distractions. All that "Warhammer Has a Great Setting" guff is crap. What really matters is (to quote the article again) "strategizing, guts, and performance".

The essay goes on to outline "Hard Core gamism" which pretty much is where wargaming lives. The essay asserts that this game mode can ONLY work with a good system because it's only about the system. If you have to stop and say "this simple situation HERE is not defined within the system at all" and try to come to a consensual agreement as to how the situation should work, then the system is broken and you immediately risk actual, personal conflict; rather than trying everything within the rules to win, you're in the realm of potentially making up rules to your own advantage, which is a betrayal at the level of the social contract. You're trying to win, absolutely, but lying, manipulating, or backstabbing at the PERSONAL level is breaking the rules and it is best that the system not require an entry into person-to-person politics in order for the game to function.

Just some thoughts smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: Combat Simulator?

To expand on my title "Combat Simulator?", reading this stuff helped me figure out something about points systems, as opposed to scenario-only, that I really like.

No-points systems are inherently Simulationist. Defiance, ironically enough, seems to me to be near-pure Gamist.

The Simulationist approach would be to put together an order of battle based on the history or fiction then see if within the parameters of the rules it played out according to the "historical" outcome- to either test the system's ability to produce historical outcomes, or to simulate alternative historical outcomes by testing different strategic approaches to the historical situation.

The Gamist approach is to take a level playing field so that strategy, guts, and performance (on the part of the players) are alone in the spotlight. If a historical rather than points-derived battle were fought this way, it would not be with the goal of testing the system or simulating alternative history but with the intention of kicking the other player's butt by either winning outright or fulfilling the scenario goals with flair and panache- thus kicking the butt of whatever historical figure was involved, too.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 65

Re: Combat Simulator?

smokingwreckage wrote:

To expand on my title "Combat Simulator?", reading this stuff helped me figure out something about points systems, as opposed to scenario-only, that I really like.

No-points systems are inherently Simulationist. Defiance, ironically enough, seems to me to be near-pure Gamist.

The Simulationist approach would be to put together an order of battle based on the history or fiction then see if within the parameters of the rules it played out according to the "historical" outcome- to either test the system's ability to produce historical outcomes, or to simulate alternative historical outcomes by testing different strategic approaches to the historical situation.

The Gamist approach is to take a level playing field so that strategy, guts, and performance (on the part of the players) are alone in the spotlight. If a historical rather than points-derived battle were fought this way, it would not be with the goal of testing the system or simulating alternative history but with the intention of kicking the other player's butt by either winning outright or fulfilling the scenario goals with flair and panache- thus kicking the butt of whatever historical figure was involved, too.

I think it depends on what you are doing with the tools you are given.

Just because Defiance allows you a highly accurate method to determine the combat effectiveness of your forces does not mean that you MUST play in a balance.  You could use them to simulate a historical battle where the sides were not even, and still rest assured that the units in question function realistically in relation to each other.

JP

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: Combat Simulator?

Justin: the point I've always made about that is that it's dead easy to ignore a well developed points-system (or even use it to ASSURE lopsided odds) but it's damn near impossible to rework a scenario-driven system to handle pick-up and tournament battles.

I hear people talk about how it's pretty easy to eyeball balance once you've played enough games, but for me, 40KM from the nearest town, and 200KM from the nearest "city" and my only regular opponent... well, I' die of old age before I got the eyeballing right.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 416

Re: Combat Simulator?

I have a bit of feeling that people who most vehemently oppose points systems don't do a lot "competetive" gaming, nor even play in a "competetive" enviroment (how nice for them, I'm sure). So they don't actually do a lot of pick-up/tournament style games and hence don't actually need to do a ton of "eyeballing for balance". Might be wrong of course, or just projecting my own limitations on more talented people. Been known to happen, on both counts.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: Combat Simulator?

While I often get whipped, I like a "competitive" environment, just so long as it doesn't get toxic. Well worded and comprehensive rules go a long way toward avoiding that.