What is realism? First of all, let's not confuse "realism" with "accuracy". The second is generally easier to obtain than the first. Accurate paint schemes, uniforms and similar.
"You weren't there" is true nearly all of the time and even where it isn't true, as Wellington said, "You can as well write the history of a ball as of a battle." Where real memories exist they are limited as to the sights, sounds, actions and even bias of the individual.
When a wargamer says "these are a realistic set of rules" what he (or very occasionally she) means is that the rules in question give results that correspond with what the speaker believes should have happened.
So, are rules no more than the writer's thoughts as to what happened?
Bankinista
Simple answer, yes.
Based on a variety of empirical data no doubt, but still an educated guess nonetheless.
Most standard histories were usually written after the event and often by people who were never there...
Those who were there often had only a partial or biased view of proceedings so it is up to historians to stitch them all together to make a narrative that makes sense.
Neil
But I'd counter with "does it matter?" ;)
If the gamers accept the rule author's focus on what he or she has scaled down and tried to represent on the tabletop; if they too buy into the implied level of realism, if the outcomes are plausible in the eyes of all concerned, the table looks good and everyone has fun, then I think I'd be happy!
Simon
Yes Simon. I was about to write something almost identical!
You and I are heretics, Sean :D
Simon
Very interesting. Does realism mean "in reality"? If so, think on this.........A Sherman tank against a Tiger. With its high velocity 88mm gun you would expect the Tiger to make toast of the Sherman and, on occasions, they did. But, in reality or real life, the Sherman tends to win out over the Tiger. Why, when the Sherman was under gunned, under armoured, had a higher profile and often had a petrol engine that was a bigger fire risk than a diesel engine? One reason, which is usually overlooked in war-games rules, is that a Sherman could fire from a steady platform on the move (not available to the Tiger) and that it could get off up to seven shots in the time that a Tiger could fire only once. Another reason is that there was always another Sherman round the corner if the Tiger did destroy the first Sherman, and another one after that! Also the Sherman was reliable, but the Tiger was not. In a good set of rules the author will accommodate all this information in a realistic way, even though the rules do not appear to be accurate. The end result may not be accurate but is pleasing to the gamer. If not the gamer goes off and finds a different set of rules.
Am I boring you?
John
I agree with Simon but with Johns overview.
A very interesting debate.
Very true on what John says about WW2 rules. The Tiger is supreme, but in reality the Sherman/T34 ruled the table as at the end of the game they will always will be still rolling along ! Is that reflected in the rules ?
The same could be said about how to colour your models ?
Do you paint the models ? As I do prefer or do you Ink and Shade them ? As a few on here do ?
In Both cases they both work, but the end result is, what you feel comfortable in doing or using ?
I think is the answer! Compromise is another way of putting it as well ! If it works well why change it !
Miles
Ground scale/min scale what is being reflected is one for me. I get turned off 28mm Bolt Action and Chain of Command etc because of that. The game may look good but does not reflect reality much at all. Those same games in 15mm (or 6mm) still have the issues but at least feel better to me. That 'look of' being realistic sits better with me with those scales.
Now, 28mm 1 to 1 in a fire fight fighting say over a house is fine - but again thats the realism of whats on the table to what is being shown.
This is same reason I avoid ww2 operational games. Having 3 models with a gun or a single tank model does not to my minds eye accurately reflect a company on the table. In many ways a counter on a map reflects that better than modeled figs on a table.
I'm with Sean and Simon on this. I don't want too much realism otherwise it is going to become both a very sombre activity and an OCD nightmare. In many ways the fantasy players have the advantage in this department. A major reason I have very little to do with post-1925, and the trench period of WWI, is the sheer number of different weapons with their own idiosyncracies. Similarly the Napoleonic period with its multiple formations and more uniforms than you can throw a stick at.I remember playing Don Featherstone's ACW rules in the 60s and having a great deal of fun. Then I fell into the trap of wondering if there was a more realistic way of playing. I saw an advert in Military Modelling espousing the realism of what I can only recall as the London ACW rules, and immediately bought a copy. Well, they were never played. They were so convoluted and complex, with rules covering every little possibility, that I just could not get my head round them. Sadly this did not put me off the search for realism. WRG rules for Ancients - never really enjoyed any of the games; Johnny Reb 2 and 3 - too many variables to cover every minor situation; even Bruce Weigle's original 1870 and the original versions of Piquet were like wading through porridge. Fortunately those two have been thoroughly revised to make much more streamlined and enjoyable games. For me, the abandonment of hyper-realism by many rules writers in the two thousands opened up a new and much more enjoyable aspect of wargaming for me. If only my friends had not insisted on continuing with Field of Glory - a miasma of too many rules covering too many situations - I would have had an even more enjoyable experience.
I think the problem in debating "realism" and "wargaming" is that it's rather like discussing the historical accuracy of a Hollywood blockbuster....
Gaming and successful movies are about entertainment not a reflection of what is often a grim reality.
Add to this that we all have our own ideas on both entertainment and historical reality......
When people refer to "realism" in wargaming what they really mean are that the rules reflect their version of what happened and are in many ways about taste. People often refer to abstract concepts such as how they " feel" or "play".
A good example of this appears in Frank Chadwick's design notes for Command Decision (as an aside, whether you like his rules or not, his designer notes are always worth reading). He gives the example of using published military data on gun performance and armour penetration; lots of such data exists for WW2. This gives the impression that a certain calibre projectile will penetrate a certain thickness of armour at specific ranges, based on test firing at captured enemy vehicles.
I've seen lots of rules that reflect this with tables showing which gun can penetrate which armour class at what range.
FC points out that the British research carries the caveat that the tests were conducted under what were fairly controlled conditions so cannot truly replicate the myriad variations in angle, barrel wear and other such factors to be found in combat.
The two extremes seen in rules are consistent predictable results or completely random. Most fall somewhere in between. Our particular preferences and prejudices will determine which we consider more or less "realistic" .
I'm firmly in the school of thought that thinks wargames have only a passing resemblance to the reality they purport to represent.
When younger I fell into the trap of searching for the most realistic set that gave the closest result for "historical accuracy" . The more I read, the more I realised it was not only unobtainable but leads to distorted thinking.
An earlier post indicated they cannot accept two figures on a base as a company; presumably even less a battalion.
This begs the question of how many figures constitute sufficient to represent the formation of choice? 10 figures or 30? Scaled at 1:5, 1:10 15, 50 or 1:1? Which provides the most "realism" ?
Napoleonic gamers field "battalions" of anything from 12 or less to 48-60 figures. This is to represent a formation of 4-600 men.
They then happily inflict casualties of 25-50% a rate way in excess of most historic battles.
This is conducted by figures wearing dress uniforms not the dysentery stained rags and greatcoats of reality, over flat tabletops garnished with flat top "hills" that are a vertical figure scale height of maybe 8 foot at best and through woods of 6-10 foot trees.....
Wargamers suspend reality every time they play a game, even a 1:1 skirmish using figure scale ranges. The more abstract the game becomes, the more the suspension of disbelief occurs.
What level you accept is down to personal preference. A two figure unit is no more or less inherently realistic than a twenty figure one. The mechanisms of the rules determine outcomes and I'd argue that's a matter of choice in selecting those which either produce results in line with your expectations or simply provide you with the most entertainment or a mix of the two.....
Neil
I think what it all boils down to is whether your experience of the game matches what you know and presumably have read about your given period.
Sometimes rule sets can reflect an outmoded view of a period which jars when it doesn't match your expectations.
Case in point - Ancient galley warfare. Often depicted going into battle under full sail - which never happened.
Most sets of main sails were taken ashore beforehand - effectively the same as stripping for action. Only the smaller foresail was used for manoeuvre up to a battle and that was stowed immediately before contact. That takes away a great part of the visual appeal at a stroke.
The Hellenistic galleys were so man-power intensive that often sections of the army were drafted in as marines. This was the case for Anthony's legions at Actium and was common practice around the Med. Such battles then become inextricably linked with managing resources and juggling the needs of the land and water battles together.
This basic mismatch with my perceived reality is also why I stopped playing World of Tanks - tanks never fought in isolation without infantry support... not surprising my life expectancy in the game was so short - constantly being placed in situations were I never would in the real world.
From my own area of research a quarter of all shells and shrapnel failed (during the Napoleonic wars right up to the 1860s). Howitzers and to a lesser extent cannon using shrapnel should really have their effectiveness at long range reduced by 25%. The psychological effect of cannonade however has always been underplayed in the horse and musket period. The shock of a cannonade or a well delivered salvo of musketry far exceeded the actual damage it inflicted... ditto a slow menacing advance with bayonets fixed...
When people talk of realism they are really voicing the debate about whether the rules and visual representation on the table matches their mind's eye based on what they know of the period.
That is certainly what I take from this debate and why I strive so hard to put as much into the scenic setting for my given period as I do the actual combatants.
Neil
A reply based on something I noticed today.
Realism (when it comes to rules) depends on whether I am making decisions similar to those that my historic counterparts made.
I like rules that are able to abstract those issues handled by the lower echelons of command.
Today I saw a new set of Napoleonic rules on the Perry Website.
I have not read them all yet, but immediately spotted a "red flag" of mine.
It seems all rules associated with the "Nottingham school" have special rules which make lancer cavalry especially effective.
I don't recall history bearing this out, and I can't remember a single time during the whole Napoleonic wars when a cavalry charge was delayed so the Lancers could be placed in the first wave.
Another element of realism is the credibility of outcomes in battles.
If the improbable happens too consistently (You know those "It happened once, so we must make provision in our rules" events):
Infantry running down cavalry with cold steel.
Cavalry capturing enemy warships.
Veteran quality troops turning and running at first contact.
Then the game will not feel credible.
This raises another difficulty I see; especially in Ancients and Colonials.
The Romans (and before them, long lists of heavy infantry based armies) won almost all their battles.
The number of native victories in major battles during the "Pax Britannica" era of colonial warfare can be counted on the fingers on one hand.
Rules that produce realistic outcomes in these gaming periods run the risk of being "not much fun".
Some rules happily jettison an element of realism to allow the player with the big army of cheap troops a chance.
Others (especially Ancients) happily tread the "Romans can't lose" path.
Well considered and interesting thoughts Steve et al.
Thanks.
I fully accept that many aspects of rule sets are compromises.
e.g. all the bases in PBI are visible because I like to see the figures . Hence no separate spotting rules.
Progress will probably take the form of "this is a more interesting way of modelling the events"?
I assume players choose a ruleset by taking many criteria into account.
In addition those criteria might have wildly differing weights.
I observe many huge games in which the spectacle seems to be 92% of the desire. 8% being the actual game play.
I enjoyed the game wherein the Polish 1939 lancers could stab Germans in the face through the driver's glass view finder. Ouch!
martin :)
That would have to be 4 sixes in a row to do that, surely!?
No problem if Stewart is rolling the dice. 🤣