Fun vs. Balance vs. Historical Accuracy

[LtDan]

Something I've been thinking about lately is the relation between fun, historical accuracy and play balance in a scenario. It seems the great scenarios maybe need a mix of all three factors, however, what do you guys think is the most important?

After all, balance is an artificial game construct in many senses. The scenario designer tries to set the victory conditions so there is an equal chance of either side winning. That's fine in theory, except in most engagements in war, the sides are not equal. If you can avoid it, you aren't going to attack if you know the other side has a 50% chance of winning. So it seems like most truly historical scenarios would not be balanced.

Fun is fairly subjective too. If the victory conditions are such that you need just one squad of your OOB to survive to win, I can't imagine that side will be much fun to play (with the ocassional exception of certain "to the death" PTO scenarios). Some people may like that kind of thing, I guess.

Without detailed command and control rules (which I'm not saying ASL needs), it also seems like ASL as a simulation is not historically accurate. Our little pieces can do tons of things that their historical counterparts would never consider. That doesn't both me that much. I think one thing ASL gives a great feel for is the chaos that can erupt on a battlefield. You never know what is going to happen and rules should restrict what desperate men can do.

Just thinking out loud... what do you think?

DANO

 

[Cthulhu]

I go for historical accuracy first, but since I think that historical accuracy is fun, I'm kind of killing two birds with one stone. Using the command & control rules from SASL eliminates a lot of the "unrealistic" omniscience that the players have. I've used a command & control system using the cards from Up Front for many years now and find that any C&C system greatly increases my enjoyment of the game.

Play balance doesn't matter too much to me, as long as the forces are historically accurate, I will enjoy myself playing...even if I am badly out-numbered or out-gunned. My regular opponent is of a like mind, so we don't have a conflict of interests.

 

[apbills]

Well, without fun there is no reason to play. In order to get fun you need play balance or some very interesting units or situations, not necessarily both.

These 2 items I think are necessary for anyone.

Historical accuracy for me is not as important, however, it is a plus. I like some decent degree of accuracy, but don't insist on reams of references depicting the battle to the gnats ass of accuracy.

I play ASL because it is a game - not a simulation. Many others play because they want it to be a simulation. I think you will find those people want much more historical accuracy in it then I do.

As for command and control....
If I wanted any less control over my pieces, I would be playing a computer simulation and would just let it do all the work. I find dice rolls to be frustrating enough, but then I am a control freak. Just try bringing down a good OBA mission and tell me how much control you really have over some aspects of this game. Not a whole lot. Obviously you have better control over other aspects.

As for what desparate men do, just read the citations for all the medals given out during the war. You would be amazed what these men did, over and over, even though most of us would NEVER dream of doing these same things. Remember when the Lt in Band of Brothers went running through the village to contact the other squad - running past the German positions? That was a true story. Now, take your 9-2 leader and run him down a street for a few hexes with german squads around and see how long he lasts. In real life, he survived, in the game, dead meat.

Now maybe what really happened was all those german squads first fired and subsequent fired at all the american squads, and then the 9-2 just waltzed on down the road without getting hit...

 

[Hubbs5]

For me fun is always the most important, balance would be second and historical accuracy a close third. Don't get me wrong I like the HASL's and all the other historical scenarios out there because many times it gives me a better idea of what those units had to face and what that might have felt like. But I have no fun at all at the end of a ABTF campaign game playing scenarios that are hopeless. With all the cool scenarios out there that I haven't played, why would I want to be the British player suffering from all sorts of shortages and trying to stop 15 Panther tanks with my bare hands even though that is basically what they had to try to do.

 

[Cthulhu]

Well, obviously fun is the prime reason to play the game... so I would think that is a given. The problem is that we all have different ideas of what is fun.

I like command control issues and don't worry at all about play balance, and others feel just the opposite. The nice thing is that ASL as an engine for playing out 20th Century small unit combat is usable in a variety of play styles. The detail is there for the guy who needs it, and can be fairly safely ignored by the guy who just wants to mix it up with some armor.

The problem I have with computer games and their level of detail is that you never know why you are able to win, or why you lost. The details are all hidden by the game...in ASL you know why you lost usually and can learn from your mistakes (or complain about being diced)

 

[Cthulhu]

But I have no fun at all at the end of a ABTF campaign game playing scenarios that are hopeless. With all the cool scenarios out there that I haven't played, why would I want to be the British player suffering from all sorts of shortages and trying to stop 15 Panther tanks with my bare hands even though that is basically what they had to try to do.

See, I love that kind of thing... every teensy little break you get tastes like victory!

 

[Hubbs5]

But I have no fun at all at the end of a ABTF campaign game playing scenarios that are hopeless. With all the cool scenarios out there that I haven't played, why would I want to be the British player suffering from all sorts of shortages and trying to stop 15 Panther tanks with my bare hands even though that is basically what they had to try to do.

See, I love that kind of thing... every teensy little break you get tastes like victory!

And that is the beauty of this game, it can be so many things to so many people and you never know quite how things are going to turn out.

 

[Bernard Howell]

I also find it to be a little more challenging than the other CG's. Great for increasing the level of your personal self rally morale - you need to do it almost every turn...

 

[bille]

I am not a historical accuracy nut in asl terms; rather I am a historical atmosphere fan. I think this is asl at its best, capturing the emotion of a situation: hanging on for grim death; tanks stalking each other, knowing one false move means the end: elite troops going into hand to hand combat because it is the only way to be sure. . .
Balance is important in so far as both sides need a reasonable chance to win, but not necessarily an equal chance.
I think this is why Hill 621 is regarded by many as the quintessential asl scenario. It perfectly captures the atmosphere of hordes of Russians assaulting a brittle but high quality German defence. A perfect rendition of the atmosphere, even though the scenario is entirely apocryphal.

 

[Guest]

As an historian, former army officer, and long-time scenario designer, I will say that there is no such thing as a historically accurate scenario. ASL is a game and not a simulation. Any scenario which uses a geomorphic map board is ahistorical from the time you place it on the table. Scenarios on HASL maps are somewhat more historically accurate but we must remember that ASL has a lot of limitations and does not portray logistics or commiunications and other elements of real combat. Actually I am glad the game is not historically accurate in all details because it would not be very much fun.

From a design stand point, fun and balance are the most important factors of a scenario. As for accuracy, I prefer the term "historically plausable". By this I mean that the scenario has units, weapons, and vehicles that were there and/or could have been there. Designers now have a vast number of historical sources from which to draw that help us determine what goes into a scenario; sources that the Hill 621 designer did not have.

Take for example the Tiger I. I have become somewhat of a specialist at determining where and when these babies fought. Whenever I see a scenario with a Tiger in it, I can usually tell you if there was actually a Tiger tank in the area or whether or not a Tiger participated. In this area (vehicle types) I insist on accuracy.

While I have been disappointed at times when I dicovered that a vehicle was definitely not in a given action, more often I am pleasantly surprised when I find that a Tiger or some exotic vehicle was actually used. Watch for my upcoming scenarios with Jadgtigers, Brumbars, Elephants, and King Tigers.

 

[Matt Shostak]

To be fun, I think both players have to have a good chance to win. Moreover, I think both players need to have interesting units to use and choices to make.

As for command and control, I find that my units are difficult enough to control as it is. I think the SASL C&C rules detract from the game, outside of SASL itself. They make sense in SASL, but if I wanted that sort of C&C thing I'd simply look for a computer game.

 

[Pitman]

I disagree completely with Evan. ASL is a simulation; in fact, it is a very detailed simulation.

Like any simulation, it contains abstractions. Some are the result of a positive desire to include them; some are the result of necessity.

It is important to note, though, that because some of these abstractions--usually the abstracted geomorphic mapboards--as well as because of some of the limited information available about a particular tactical situation, one cannot consider a scenario to actually *model* the particular historical situation on which it is based. Rather it models World War II tactical combat more generally, and ASL scenarios are *inspired* by the historical situation rather than an attempt to replicate them. This is somewhat less true for the HASLs.

Some people are under the mistaken assumption that the terms "game" and "simulation" are somehow mutually exclusive. But they are not. Frequently, they are compatible, and this is the case with ASL. ASL is a game--a darn good one. It is also a simulation--and a pretty good one there, too.

The key for the designer is to maintain historical faithfulness within the limits of a) knowledge and b) the game system. Given those limits, I think historical accuracy is extremely important in ASL. The trick is to be accurate, and yet make the scenario interesting as a game as well.

 

[Jazz]

Some people are under the mistaken assumption that the terms "game" and "simulation" are somehow mutually exclusive. But they are not. Frequently, they are compatible, and this is the case with ASL. ASL is a game--a darn good one. It is also a simulation--and a pretty good one there, too.

.

As long as players have complete control over the movement of units (i.e. choreographing T-H-E perfect move) and they have essentially unlimited time to consider their moves and decsions, ASL is fundamentally flawed as a simulation.

True tactical combat (and hence any simulation of such) is a fundamentally visceral endeavor. Read any of the accounts by small unit commanders. They did not have time time think, just to react. There are some ASL players that play this way (all of the good ones I know do), and they are fun to play against. There are many more that do not, and games just seem to drag....

Playing with a chess clock goes a long way toward making it more like a simulation. Actually makes for a good game, even for folks that move fast. Another level of tension.

You still have the fact that both players have complete knowledge of the terrain (not often the case in WWII, remember, neither side had as good or as many maps as we do today). You also have the fact that both players have way more detailedinformation about the opposing sides forces than any company/battalion commander would have had.

 

[FrankH.]

I disagree completely with Evan. ASL is a simulation; in fact, it is a very detailed simulation.

Some people are under the mistaken assumption that the terms "game" and "simulation" are somehow mutually exclusive. But they are not. Frequently, they are compatible, and this is the case with ASL. ASL is a game--a darn good one. It is also a simulation--and a pretty good one there, too.

I would agree with Mr. Pitman here. ASL is both a game (might be considered a very good one where the scenarios have a lot of replay value, and not so good for those scenarios that don't) and a simulation of WWII tactical combat.

However, "simulation" is a very relative word in this sense, so I do not think it is terribly useful to argue if ASL is a good or a poor simulation. Probably it is a better simulation of its subject than any other boardgame up till now. And at the same time probably ASL is nothing close to what the modern US army uses to simulate combat for training purposes.

You could say that ASL is a very good simulation. Or you could say that it is a very poor simulation. Both statements would be accurate, in my opinion.

Frank

 

[Pitman]

Jazz writes:

As long as players have complete control over the movement of units (i.e. choreographing T-H-E perfect move) and they have essentially unlimited time to consider their moves and decsions, ASL is fundamentally flawed as a simulation.

I certainly don't accept this rather uncategorical assertion--and for a number of reasons. First, players do not have complete control of their units in ASL. Second, they often have less time to consider their moves and decisions than their historical counterparts.

But more importantly, neither one of the things you mention is a necessary ingredient for a simulation. From the very beginning of military simulations in the 19th century, those aspects have not been considered necessary.

 

[Oliver]

Tom J: Thanks. That needed to be said. Still a great game, though.

 

[Jazz]

Tom J: Thanks. That needed to be said. Still a great game, though.

Yup, its a great game. I only have time/attention to play one game and this is the one. If it is played "fast & loose" it takes on the characteristics of an athletic event. Pretty neat when you realize this and get into a "groove".

I also guess that I've just used too many simulations in real world applications (Wilderness search&rescue and Manufacturing) to think that it is a good simulation. It's amazing the difference in decisions/actions taken between perfect control/information (including time for decision analysis) scenarios and imperfect control/information scenarios.

Just one man's opinion.....

 

[Keith]

Well, Dano, you have received a wide range of responses. I will not get into the simulation or not to simulate debate. I like my scenarios to be loosely historical but more importantly I like them to be interesting. By interesting I mean that I like them to have some fun units (a 9-2 leader, FT or DC, some nice tanks or AT Guns). I guess I am saying I like combined arms and I want the scenario to be fairly well balanced (within the 60-40 area). I want the scenarios to represent all nationalities from all theaters. Variety is the spice of life.