Historical Accuracy vs Playability

[Bernie]

Okay, here's a thread that has the potential to spark some interesting debates, and make it into the HOF.

Having worked on MCSE I know how much effort we put into making it as historically accurate as possible. However, due to limitations in the game engine itself I doubt we'll ever get 100% accuracy in SP:WaW.

My question is: Which is more imporatnt to you, the player? Accuracy or playability?

Also, on the topic of historical accuracy, I want to discuss the use of various units in non-historical ways. I've seen threads here where it was said that using German MC units (and those of other countries) as "fast scouts" isn't historically accurate, as they weren't employed in this role. There's also the whole artillery limitation issue which, while needed for playability, isn't very historically accurate. What's your opinion?

[Grimm]

The balance, for me, depends alot on what game it is I am playing. In regards to SPWaW, I expect it to lean more towards the accurate end of the scale than the playable one. This is based on the great amount of attention and detail that is contained in the OOBs.

IMO, I think Matrix has found a good balance. I can play a game with a great amount of attention paid to historical detail and still enjoy the experience!

[Orzel Bialy]

I like battles that can put you in the shoes of someone else...and see if you can do better or not...so I tend to lean towards the historical aspect more.

However, I realize that there must be some give and take...since it is a simulation and not real life...and that some things must be skewed in order for the game engine to make it play-worthy...but not too much!

Scenarios don't tend to be a problem really though...those are usually well balanced for historical content. Now PBEM's are a different story...since you often hear stories of hordes of jeeps/kubelwagens carrying bazooka/PF teams....or hundreds of airborne or special forces/rangers being involved. That's were the historical compositions usually take a beating in my opinion.

[chief]

I for one can only echo Orzel's comments.

[Fallschirmjager]

PBEM is supossed to be balenced to the point of being ahistorical


If it was real
Lets assume I was playing as the Germans vs the US

I would get about 10x less points
Half of my equipment would break down or never make it to the battlefield
Id take a crushing Bombardment with artillary and aircraft
And I would lose


That is realistic..but not too much fun

[Kevin E. Duguay]

The questions are not accurate.?.

[stevemk1a]

I voted for "mostly accurate with some concessions". It's important to me for a wargame to be historically accurate. Otherwise it's just a video game with a "historical flavour" ... and there's already enough of them out there.

[Irinami]

I carefully vote for #1. I want a game to, as accurately as I can, portray battles in which either side has a more or less equal chance at victory. I do not want to play 30 turns of preparatory bombardment. That's accurate, sure, but there is little chance for one of the sides to grasp a tangible "victory."

As Norm Koger put it in his Conflict: Middle East Designer's Notes, "Some wargame designers try to get around <human players knowing more than their historical counterparts and/or not using the same tactics> by placing onerous command and control restrictions on players. I have always disliked this approach. When I play a wargame I want to be placed in the position of the original commander without being forced to actually be the original commander."

As he put it, I would like, "... a game which more or less accurately reflects the physical and political realities of an historical event." As military commanders, the players of SPWAW do not get to make the political decisions as to why they go to war. I mean to say, a GE player plays a Rommel, not a Hitler, and doesn't get to choose whether Germany as a whole invades Russia. He does, however, get to choose how he fights each battle. His actions in the battle can be viewed primarily in two ways:

1.) As representative of the whole. Id est, if the player does well, his battle is a microcosm of the macrocosm--his nation is doing well, more or less, on all fronts. Panzer General had this view.

2.) As a particular snapshot of the war. The Long WWII campaign is like this. No matter how well (or poorly) you do, Germany enters Russia and then falls back from it; she is defeated in Africa; she enters France and then is driven into the Fatherland. Your actions are entirely your own, it seems, and have little to no bearing on the war--only on where you are assigned to on the front you chose for that battle.

I like the view #1. If every battle of mine is a DV in North Africa as a German commander, then that should have a bearing on whether German keeps N.A. (or at least for how long she does!). Ideally, if successful enough, I could drive the Russians out of Moscow, keep them out of the war for any significant period! (This in fact could DELAY the development of the Tiger/TigerII! Think about that!) Ideally, I could play the Nationalist Chinese, defeat Mao while holding off Japan (if I'm annihilating both), and thus have NC, CC, and JA weapons to choose from AND a higher Experience/Morale base to pull from (because in theory I'd have the stability to train a proper army and a cadre of veterans with which to train them).

Of course, I stress "ideally." Ideal situations are rare and probably vary quite a lot between people. This is why SPWAW is excellent. I can, with some effort, make a long-WWII campaign to my standards. I can modify the OOB's to my heart's content. Even now I am setting up a strategically-effected SPWAW with such strategic repercussions, with battlefields selected based on previous performance. With OOB modifications allowed, after the investment of a certain amount of points and/or successes (eg, he could introduce an up-armored halftrack for, say, 500 points).

So, in a way, SPWAW is as close to the ideal as I could hope for.

[Klinkenhoffen]

Historical with concessions to playability.

As it moves away from Historical then it must be realistic. Eg, you don't want to come across a company of suicide M4 drivers. Some would argue that if you drive an M4 then they are suicidal anyway.

klink

[K62_]

I also vote for #1, even though the choice seems rather vague to me.

For one thing, in SPWaW accuracy is an important part of playability. People have fun with this game because it is detailed and well-researched. It makes you feel that you can/must take the same kind of decisions as a field commander did in WW2. It makes you learn more about this great historical event.

That's more than 50% of the fun IMHO. That's why I vote for maximum accuracy - because I want maximum bang from the game

Does playability mean for you "blowing things up" (i.e., multimedia effects) like in the last option of the poll?

Or does it mean play balance, like in your first post?

If it means play balance, that's even harder to achieve than accuracy! Even a game as comparatively simple as chess is disbalanced and your chances and strategies depend a lot on which side you play.

A simple example for SPW@W. Let's say you have 1000 buy points to get tanks. It is hopeless and impossible to figure out a cost scheme that will allow you equal chances whether you buy Tigers or M4s! It just depends too much on terrain, support troops, weather etc. Somebody will always have good reason to complain that he was 'beaten on the purchase screen'

The examples are kinda confuse Can you, or anybody, guarantee that no batallion commander ever used MCs as "fast scouts" in WW2? To put it differently, does accuracy imply you have to know perfectly your army's drill book - and follow it to the letter? I don't think so.

Artillery limitation is historical IMHO. There was only so much arty a small unit could have and so much that could be shifted from division reserve. It is not perfect (Americans should usually have more points for arty, Soviets in late '41 only a few big guns since they lost most everything in the retreat) but it's a step in the right direction.

[Bernie]

I also vote for #1, even though the choice seems rather vague to me.

My apologies for how vauge the voting selections might be, but you're limited to how much text you can put in one.

Does playability mean for you "blowing things up" (i.e., multimedia effects) like in the last option of the poll?

Or does it mean play balance, like in your first post?

What does it mean for you, the player? What I trie to do was go to both extremes, a perfectly accurate historical representation or a fast "shoot 'em up" and then fill in the middle with a sliding scale of choices between those extremes.

The examples are kinda confuse Can you, or anybody, guarantee that no batallion commander ever used MCs as "fast scouts" in WW2? To put it differently, does accuracy imply you have to know perfectly your army's drill book - and follow it to the letter? I don't think so.

Artillery limitation is historical IMHO. There was only so much arty a small unit could have and so much that could be shifted from division reserve. It is not perfect (Americans should usually have more points for arty, Soviets in late '41 only a few big guns since they lost most everything in the retreat) but it's a step in the right direction.

I used those examples just off the top of my head as things I've seen debated in the forums.

What I'm trying to get at is, how close to "reality" do players prefer their games? And do those choices vary, according to the type of game played (ie: PBEM, AI, MC, Scen)? Most of us who PBEM make a big point in setting "rules" for PBEM games, with things such as arty limits, no strike aircraft, no infiltrators, etc, etc. Such choices have a significant impact upon how historically accurate a game might be, and I'm just looking to see what most people prefer.

[TheOverlord]

I think this can be divided into 3 things - equipment accuracy, historical accuracy, and gamey things.

For me, I want the equipment to be as accurate as possible, as well as a solid balistics / penetration equation. From there everything else will flow. The only thing WAW should attempt to do is accurately portray the units and their behaviors.

How they are used, how many where there actually built, how good where the commanders etc. cannot be modled, and should not attempt to be controlled in the game by adjusting unit stats. WE are in charge and move / use the units as we see fit and make purchases based on our own playing styles, not on historical reasons, so the unit stats should not be altered to reflect a historical occurance. France crumbled pretty quick for example, but it doesnt mean their equipment was necessarily all bad.

The beauty of WAW is doing it our own way, which usually has nothing to do with history.

If you want HISTORICAL accuracy then there are lots of great scenarios that reflect this.

For HISTORICALLY accurate pbem games, make a set of rules that would represent this as well (limit number/type of armor units for example - no purchasing 12 companies of Konigstigers), but dont ever ever ever tweak unit behaviors because historically one country or another lost / won and things are being weighed one way or the other in the oobs to reflect this.

The equipment accuracy is gospel and is as"real" as the game should attempt to be. Historical events should not be tied to the equipement.

Then there are the game things that could be considered quirks or loop holes that lesson the "real" feel of the game for some, but hey, it IS a game. And even here we have some say over these things now by setting up rules - no drop and shoot heavy AA for example.

As a game, concessions to "reality" must be made in order to play it. Some things can not be helped due to way the code is written, there is no better way to model it and keep th egame as it is, it may break something else etc. and we have to live with it.

The only reall thing that there is control over is the unit accuracy and the equation to calculate hits and penetration. As long as that is accurate, the rest is up to us to make it as real as we want!

[Wild Bill]

Without trying to toot my own horn, the latest editorial I submitted to the Wargamer addresses this issue, at least from my point of view.

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/gaming_meets_history_5/

In a nutshell, I want the proper mix of both. To make a battle playable and challenging, something needs to be done to the scenario to produce that feeling of challence and possible victory.

Historicity properly mixed playability = FUN!

One more thing, I want the "feel" of the battle. I want to sense something of the crisis of the situation, even as the commander did in the real thing.

But what about hypotheticals..."what if" scenarios? They too can have a place in gaming. Actually once you make the first move or fire the first shot, a semi-historical situation becomes hypothetical anyway.

You are overriding what was done historically, making your own choices as the leader of your forces to obtain the victory.

Very nice survey, Bernie. I'll be watching this with much interest, as should all scenario designers. What do folks want? What do they like? That is of interest to all of us.

Wild Bill

[M4Jess]

If you want "real" Try 1 M4 fighting 5 Tigers...and the M4 will come out on top!

[Wild Bill]

Now there's a challenge for you!

WB

[Rhodan]

I prefer historically accurate , but to the point where the choices I make during the game have some actual impact. I played some great games over the years but the ones I dislike most are the ones where I won every,or most of them , battle and still learned in the end ' well you did a jolly good job old bean, unfortunately the germans lost the war, see it says so in the history books, so off you go now, ta-ta'

I'd like to see the individual units to maintain their traits without it becoming a slugfest of tables, numbers and data which, now over 50 years old, is tauted as historically correct. That kind of remind me of those DnD sessions where everyone is having a great time, up to the point where everything comes to a grinding halt because of bickering over a small rule on page XXX. That would ruin the fun of this game tremendously, IMHO.

We might as well accept that in no way we will be able to have this game represent reality 100% correctly, so if we make it to 80% and toss in 20% good fun, I'll be a happy camper


Rh

I SO suck at this game. Even the AI is laughing it's *** of at me. I know. I hear it. It's in that whirling sound my coolingfan makes.

[Major_Johnson]

I have to admit, I'm all over the historical stuff. I much prefer playing battles that actually happened. The variable is how you as a commander fight the battle, whether it's a doomed battle or not. I like to think that there are always options! Blowing things up is all fine and dandy, but when you earn it, now there's true satisfaction!!

[Wild Bill]

A mix of history is so important. That is what makes our hobby different from the normal gaming community.

We are trying to relive or even remake history. True, the Italans lost badly at Beda Fomm, but when I play the scenario, I don't want a cake walk as the British , nor do I want an impossible situation as the Italians. Give me at least an outside chance to bring some sort of minor win out of it.

There are enough tools in SPWAW to do that, without changing the historical structure of the engagement.

This requires more of the designer, as it should. Put some serious thought into the scenario, plan it well and test it yourself again and again before asking others to test it, and certainly do not put it out to the public until it has been tested and found to have some sort of victory possibility as Italians or some sort of difficulty as the British.

That same rule should apply for any battle recreation in my point of view

Wild Bill

[STEELER13]

Yo All,
Excellent question but it is only tip of the iceberg for the discussion. For me the selection is limited due to level of accuracy.
For example of one level, someone who wants to game a situation of Rommel's Afrika Korps or a particluar aspect of a battle, wants the basic vehicles and rough ratio of troops as were actually present. To have a King Tiger or Jadgpanther or Das Reich show up on Omaha beach June 6th hurts that credibility that says this is an Omaha Beach battle, in my opinion.
To take to another level, however, which is to say each squad should be armed exactly or have the exact numbers as they were in WWII is not only too much detail but in my opinion very hard to prove. Heck, Nipe, Glantz, and others can't even agree to how many tanks participated in Prokhorovka so how do you get historians to agree on what weapons were used by a SQUAD in a battle? Standard TOE didn't mean it was always standard. I know in some cases among the MCSE team the number of MG's per squad was one particular discussion that came to mind and each person had very legitimate points.
I personally liked to see Gammon Bombs as every article I read of the 101st at Normandy included mention of these neat weapons used to knock out bunkers and tanks alike.
But....how nitpicky can you get?
With regards to hypotheticals, I must mention I like playing ahistorical games occasionally but to me a hypothetical is based on decisions..."what if Peiper went around Bastogne"...not "what if Peiper had several MAUS tanks at Bastogne". The last is like giving the guys in the Alamo an MG42 or a Metal Storm(see earlier post by someone!). This situation would be fun for all of about 5 minutes.
But then again historical battles as someone pointed out are not "even" battles...often they are one-sided.

So next poll should be level of accuracy wanted....vehicles, setting, OOB, unit Weapons, etc. Just my humble opinion...

[NaKATPase]

I disagree entirely with the unstated premise of this poll, which seems to be that accuracy and playability are two ends of the same spectrum. This is not true.

Elaborate and arcane game mechanics can end up being unplayable AND not accurate, while sometimes relatively simple mechanics can help give a more accurate picture of what a particular command was like for those involved. Likewise, a game with simple mechanics can end up not being a very accurate simulation of history (ex. Chess), while a well designed game with complex rules can end up giving a fairly realistic feeling of command (ex. ASL). The point is, accuracy and playability are two independent variables.

My own personal view on this issue though is that game designers should pick what aspect(s) of the historical command and/or battlefield experience that they want to reflect accurately, and then design with those limits in mind a very playable system for accurately depicting those aspects. I think problems come in when a designer wants to depict everything as accurately as possible, without taking into account that no real person had to deal with everything taking place on the battlefield.