Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 5687931" data-attributes="member: 1645">Perhaps this passage on <a href="http://www.kriegsspiel.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=59" target="_blank">the evolution of early wargames</a> (Kriegsspiel) will feel oddly familiar to those debating rules-heavy modern versions of the game versus rules-light older versions, while explaining the allure of game run on human judgment rather than rulebooks written by distant designers:Early recreational wargames were rather abstract and unrealistic affairs, usually based upon some variant of chess. During the nineteenth century, however, wargames tended to develop a more realistic format, largely as a result of the renewed military interest caused by the Napoleonic Wars themselves. Thinking officers were then starting to experiment with various ways of representing battles in miniature; and in Prussia this developed to a very advanced stage indeed. The military kriegspiel gradually became a recognized means of officer training, and later even evolved into an aid for strategic planning. The nineteenth-century Prussian game started life with a rigid structure and copious formal rules. The two sides were each placed in a separate room with a model of the terrain or a map. The umpires moved from one room to another collecting orders from the players, and then retired to a third room to consult the rules and find the results of combat. A great deal of their time was consumed in leafing through voluminous sets of rules, consulting tables and giving rulings on fine legal points. By about 1870, however, this rigid system was starting to be thought rather clumsy and time-consuming. Quite apart from the many defects and loopholes in the rules themselves, it reduced the umpires, who were often very senior officers, to the role of mere clerks and office boys. clearly, such a state of affairs was intolerable. It was General von verdy du Vernois who finally broke with this system, and abolished the rule book altogether. His approach to the wargame was the free kriegspiel, in which the umpire had a totally free hand to decide the result of moves and combats. He did not do this according to any set of written rules, but just on his own military knowledge and experience. He would collect the players' moves in exactly the same way as before; but he would then simply give a considered professional opinion on the outcome. This speeded up the game a very great deal, and ensured that there was always a well thought-out reason for everything that happened. This was a great help in the debrief after the game, and it allowed players to learn by their mistakes very quickly. The free kriegspiel using maps can offer many advantages for modern wargamers provided that the umpire has a reasonable background in wargaming, and a bit of common sense. If this condition is met, the game immediately becomes faster and less pedantic than if it had been tied down to a set of rules. The umpire can always think of more factors to incorporate in his decisions than could ever be true in a formal or rigid game. He can therefore spread a greater atmosphere of realism about the game.Rather than simply asking the umpire/DM to declare the outcome, a modern free Kriegsspiel has him declare potential outcomes before rolling a die:When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.</blockquote>

Verification