Deja Vu Redo

The Old Generation of Discussions
About the Next Generation of Wargames

by Bill Haggart

When a people experience deja vu, they usually can't place why the present events seem so familiar. In discussions of wargame design, this isn't true--When the deja vu hits, garners often know exactly where and how many times in the past they've had the same experience. The old gaming deja vu hit me full force when I read Sam Mustafa's well-written Meditations on the Next Generation of Wargame Rules in MWAN #124. In it, he wrote:

"One of the recurring arguments in wargaming is this question of whether suchand-such is a 'game' or a 'simulation. "'

It's true. It is an argument that continually pops up in all sorts of places over and over again with all sorts of variations--on dozens of email lists, in articles like Sam's, as well as in general discussions among wargamers. This is ancient history: this 'argument' was created by the designer-philosophers of Simulations Publications, Inc. way back in the 1970s and it has been with us like the flu ever since. I think a good question would be 'why?' As Sam points out, it's a false dichotomy. So why does it keep reappearing? (Sometimes I feel like singing "The Cat Came Back.") Well, the answer to that question is imbedded in Sam's explanation:

"The implication is usually that a game places fun over historical realism, whereas a simulation places historical realism at the center, and works out from there. Obviously, this is a false dichotomy. First of all, nothing we do on a tabletop actually 'simulates' anything other than moving little metal men on a tabletop. So it doesn't really matter what processes we use' we're never really simulating war. "

Most designers, such as Frank Chadwick and John Hill, are on record saying that historical wargames are just the designer's personal opinions--basically fantasies made physical. As Sam says, it's nothing more than pushing little lead figures around the table. This wouldn't even be an issue, let alone an endlessly repeated argument, except for one thing: garners really, really want their "historical" games to simulate history on some level. They are supposed to be representative of something, right?

Simulations seem to be something we passionately want, so we fail to convince ourselves it's impossible. And the argument keeps re-emerging. For the last thirty years, members of our hobby have made claims that history is 'somehow' being captured in game play, then denying it just as adamantly.

However, I'd like to suggest another, more fundamental reason why the simulation versus game dichotomy won't go away. For the last thirty years, the hobby has continually defined itself into this design dead end because:

Wargamers, and game designers in particular, don't appear to know what simulations are or how they work.

It is little wonder that the discussion seem to endlessly turn back on itself, continually repeating old phrases as though this time they'll mean something useful.

It does continue to amaze me that everyone talks about simulations, but most seem to work under Sam's 'definition' of simulations implied in his comments. ("We're never really simulating war.") It's completely untenable as a definition and not to be found among professional simulation designers or game theorists. This isn't any slam at Sam. By his own admission, he doesn't design historical simulations. And, the belief he states is one shared by many in the hobby.

However, it is why "simulations versus games" is still constantly on 're-cycle': we haven't bothered to seriously look at what we're talking about. We keep fussing with simulations versus games because we don't really understand simulations in the first place and know very little about current game theory. So, we fabricate unworkable expectations for our game designs and the hobby. This is why Sam ends up coming to the same untenable conclusions in MWAN #124 that were stated in James Dunnigan's Wargame Design in 1975.

A Description of Simulations

Below is a brief description of simulations. I am not giving my opinion, but simply expressing what can be found in scores of books on simulation design from the last half-century. I have provided a sampling in the references at the end of this article. I have also professionally designed dozens of training simulations for educators and a few published and unpublished wargames too. During that time I have talked to professional designers in a number of other fields, including the military.

Simulations come in two flavors, static and dynamic. Static simulations are those built simply to illustrate an event or situation-they have only one outcome, the one each was designed to produce. You see these displayed in museums. Others are the models build by architects to show clients. There are computer simulations to model chemical reactions. Even reinactments and movies fall into this category as there is only one outcome planned for and produced. Most often static simulations are just sources of information in a dramatic form.

Dynamic simulations, on the other hand, are tools designed to examine options and possibilities, or to provide decision-making environments for participants, usually for training or experimental purposes. Note that the intent of the designer and the purpose of the simulation are the primary determiners of whether a simulation is static or dynamic. You see gamers continually confuse the two types. You often hear or read the complaint that "simulations are boring because you always end up with the historical outcome"-a static simulation. On the other hand, perhaps the wargame designers didn't understand the difference between 'dynamic' and 'static' simulations in the first place.

All dynamic simulations have several things in common, whether they are computer programs simulating the growth of viral epidemics, flight simulators, or military wargames:

1. All simulations are not 'real' and never will be. In fact, that is a major benefit of, and rationale behind simulations: participants can test theories, decisions, and skills without risking the seriously negative aspects of reality. In other words, simulations are specifically designed notto fully simulate reality. There is absolutely no reason to want to fully 'simulate' a war or anything else for that matter. What's the point of having a driver training simulation if the participant can die in a car crash when they make the wrong decision or simply haven't developed the skill to avoid it? (If I was perverse enough, I could probably come up with a reason.)

2. All simulations are designed to 'simulate' (as in model, recreate, mimic, operate in a similar fashion) reality in very specific ways, and only those limited ways. Of all the millions of possible variables in a real life event, only a few are chosen for a simulation. However, the variables chosen in a simulation are meant to provide the same specific decision-making options and dynamics found in the actual environment or events modeled. That means a dynamic one-to-one relationship. If simulations could not do this successfully, they would be useless. There are enough examples of training simulations effectively preparing soldiers, professionals, and laypeople to perform successfully during the real events to validate this theory and approach.

3. All simulations have participants generally aware of exactly what is and is not "real" about the simulation. This is because the design intentions and scope are explicit. That means an Apache helicopter pilot knows what is 'real' and what is 'fantasy' about a combat simulator, even if they haven't been in real combat. A combat simulator's "realism" is limited to only a few factors out of the thousands confronted by pilots in real combat. But as I said, that is true of all simulations.

So when Sam says "it doesn't really matter what processes we use, we're never really simulating war", he completely misconstrues both the purpose and the design methodology of simulations. His perspective suggests that flight simulators never really simulate anything because the pilots aren't actually flying, thereby missing the whole purpose of flight simulators altogether. The purpose is to provide participants with opportunities to measure and to be measured on the appropriateness and practicality of their decisions in a non-lethal environment.

This certainly sounds like one desired result of wargames. Very few, if any wargames meet the three criteria above. Wargame designers certainly haven't employed the methodology for creating simulations and seem unaware of basic game theory. What would happen if a RC Model plane builder that had no knowledge of flight theory or aero-dynamics? The RC modeler's craft would depend completely on intuition and hearsay, and whether his planes flew or crashed, the only explanation would be someone's opinion. Most wargamers can imagine what the discussions would be like between such RC modelers.

This lack of knowledge leaves Sam-and the hobby--with just one focus: games. Understandably, he defines good 'fun' games as a matter of personal preference. He says:

"Second, the amount of fun you might obtain from playing the game is relative to the degree that the rules feel 'right' to you.... "

"Feeling Right" as the Basis for Design Analysis

So, the only measure of our games is what 'feels right?" Is that the extent and sole measure of any design analysis today? If so, then what is the next intellectual step towards a 'new generation' of games when 'likes' are the only determinant? Logically, it's to categorize games by viewpoint and preference. Sam writes:

"So I think a more useful set of labels would differentiate the style and approach of the game designer, rather than trying to talk about fun' or realism.' And here I do think we can set up a kind of continuum, explaining the ways in which games work. 17/ call it 'Control' versus 'Chaos' models of games. "

Because this dichotomy is based on the designer's preferences (style and approach), this control / chaos dichotomy fails to illuminate. It only describes "what feels right" to the game designer, nothing more. How much control is desired is a personal preference and can be placed anywhere on the continuum-it's just a matter of opinion. It reduces the entire discussion to personal "likes." That has consequences.

One consequence is that the description fails to be a viable, technical continuum. All games have their unknowns and predictable outcomes. Actually, the games Sam places at opposite ends of his continuum, Piquetat the limits of chaos, and Empire with ultimate control, are more alike than different in the design criteria Sam lists. One of the characteristics of Control games is "a very detailed sequences of play." Now, Piquet's sequence in a turn is easily as complex as Empirds, just different. (Piquet is complex enough to warrant an instruction video.) The two designs simply place the complexity (and unpredictability) in different places. Both have unpredictable movement, both based on the quality of the army command structure. One portrays it with cards and dice, the other just dice. You may believe Piquet is more chaotic than Empire, but that is a matter of degree, not two distinct types of games at opposite ends of a continuum.

All games are about control, and control requires some kind of predictability. (See the references for books on the subject of game theory and control.) What players control is the heart and soul of any game. If Piquet were completely chaotic, with no player control, it wouldn't be a game and the players would be just spectators. (Well, I do remember one game of Piquet. . .) In this regard, the boardgame BattleCryis far more chaotic, with less player control, than Piquet.

But Sam recognizes this. As he points out, "The chaos games inevitably suffer from their own forms of predictability, and you soon realize that these allegedly chaotic games are in fact quite predictable too." So even the distinctions concerning control and chaos are really about a few differences in the 'amounts' of control. There is no control versus chaos dichotomy between Empire and Piquet, rather it is amounts of the same thing expressed with different mechanics.

This is what happens when personal preferences are used to describe game designs. Invariably, false distinctions are made that shed very little light on game design in this generation or the next. Without more useful definitions and methodology, the pointless re-hash will continue. At this rate, if any of the games in the Next Generation are innovative, it will be in spite of such hobby discussions rather than because of it.

But this begs the question. Definitions and categories are important. It allows the Hobby to define itself, provides a common language about what it does, and focuses creative thinking rather than dispersing it. So how do we describe and differentiate between our games so that something meaningful is developed? It is vital to our "next generation" of games. Whatever definitions are established, they have to be usefulsomething the hobby can build on, something inclusive of all our games, something that actually helps develop better wargames, and simulations.

How Hobbies Define and Categorize Their Craft

At the moment we describe our games by scale: 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 25mm, and 54mm. We categorize them by the size of the military action: skirmish, tactical, grand tactical, and operational. We divide them up by historical periods. This does categorize a game by content, but in terms of design, it says very little. Terms like "fun" and "realistic" or even "complexity levels" are subjective and wide open to interpretation. So, how do we effectively describe our game designs?

Our Hobby is hardly unique in this need for definitions. Every hobby requires it, and while the needs are different, the definitions serve the same organizational and analytic necessities. Let's take another hobby: Radio Control Airplanes. How do they categorize the substance of their hobby, the model planes? They don't do it by size, by the number of servos, or even the horsepower of the engines. They created a descriptive hierarchy based on the modeler's intent (goals) and his methodology. The hierarchy created has no better and best categories, just differences that support the hobby.

They have very clear criteria for the following types of model planes (actual terms may vary regionally, but the categories remain fixed):

    Free Flight: These are models that fly, but do no represent any real planes. Many beginner models are free flight. The criteria for free flight, particularly in kit descriptions and competition all deal with flight characteristics and modeling methods.

    Semi-Scale: This category sees models that are representational. They model recognized characteristics of real planes, but do not physically match any of the real dimensions in scale. The model may have the small tail, cowling, and paint job of a ME 109, but its wingspan and width are not to scale. Flight characteristics are also not to scale.

    Scale: Now the models are configured after actual planes to a specific scale. The physical shape of the plane is meant to replicate the real plane. Details, such as dive brakes, antennas, guns, gas tanks, wheel covers appear. The historical records and mechanical drawings become references in proving actual scale. Some flight characteristics are required to be to scale. The internal construction of the model does not follow that of the real plane, though.

    True Scale: The models now are as close to the real thing as possible. Metal skin may be applied with rivets. The frame construction, balance and weight of the model are built to scale. The interior of the cockpit is detailed. The moving surfaces of the wings and tail all work, as well as the landing gear. The actual model engine is either hidden or the engine is actually a scale model of the real thing. All flight characteristics including flight speed are to scale. In competition the historical mechanical drawings must be produced for the judges. Boeing, Douglas and the rest of the airplane manufacturers actually pay "true scale" modelers to build and test the flight characteristics of their new designs.

What does this do for the RC Model hobby? It provides a meaningful structure for those in the hobby. The modelers can chose the kind of modeling they want to do, but still have some sense of the different qualities inherent in the various approaches, and still be part of the same hobby. The actual models are designed differently and often require different skills to build and fly.

More importantly, it has provided a structure for growth and innovation. The innovator who wants to create an entirely new model configuration has the materials and methods available through the category provided: Free Flight. The hard-core scale modeler who wants to count the rivets along the leading edge of a SDB Dauntless 5A has a place in the hobby, AND the technical support focused to find and accomplish such things. Probably the critical aspect of this hierarchy is that it provides a structure for critical discussion in the hobby--and any innovations.

The terms Free Flight, Semi-Scale etc. have specific, technical meanings that are common knowledge in the hobby, not just someone's opinion. Do the criteria for the different categories change? Yes, when enough in the hobby think it's necessary. Is there some magic formula for these model categories? No, the categories are all really arbitrary. They are used, not because they are "truth" or the "best" way to define RC models, but because they work to support the growth and craft of the hobby. How? Several ways:

    1. They provide a common language. How often do wargame design discussions end up being arguments over semantics and definitions? One of the attractions of becoming engrossed in just one set of rules is that everyone is talking the same language.

    2. They provide a technical, objective way to compare and contrast designs. When there is only opinion defining game design, then any comparisons are differences in opinions. How many times has a design discussion dissolved into an effort to prove someone's opinion wrong-based on another personal opinion? Too often this leads discussions to the next step: simply getting 'personal.'

    3. They allow a constructive discussion on specific methods that apply to only one kind of design, or differently between the various categories. This would go a long way to avoiding discussions were someone is advocating that every game should have the same, "best" game mechanics.

    4. It gives a structure to both critical analysis and design innovation. Understanding and creativity are both based on the ability to effectively contract and compare. Without a structure, the community of wargamers can't do that collectively. They don't now.

    5. It provides more objective information about a model's design. As it is now, it is often difficult to separate the hype from the concrete game mechanics, opinion from the actual success of a wargame design.

    6. It provides a marketing structure for publishers and product manufacturers. If there is one thing that controls the innovation of the 'next generation' of games, it is the market and the products it offers. The structure helps the seller know what the gamer wants and in turn this provides more specific products, which in turn generates more innovation. This is quite evident in RC Modeling.

Some in our hobby have attempted pieces of this with such things as standardized figure scales, but unlike RC Models where the craft and performance is all directly physical, a significant portion of wargaming is not: the game design and play. (The play is physical, but actually represents another kind of physical activity altogether.)

A second issue is that unlike all RC model builders, the only wargamers that would have to abide by any hobby criteria are the game designers. Game designers have often shown themselves quite unwilling to have their designs "categorized" by any uniform descriptions. In fact a number actively derail any possible criteria for evaluating their work. Why? Well, some feel it would stifle creativity. It wouldn't, but it would give a name to their creations.

Others don't want anyone looking behind the curtains. Designers would have to provide information about the purposes and methods behind their design. They might need to know some simulation and game theory. Some don't want to be bothered with that. Others insist that such things don't apply to our hobbyor help in designing wargames. Often the real issue is this: These design requirements would reveal an embarrassing lack of knowledge, clear intent and coherent methods, or unmask the hype: "Relive history!" "Now, you are in command." "An accurate recreation of the Battle."

Wargaming Categories

Let's make up a categorization model just for the sake of argument here, to demonstrate how it could be done and why it would be a benefit.

All the games in the Wargaming hobby are wargames. It is a question of how to differentiate between them in some useful manner. One thing is required: any distinctions must be technical and specific rather than design philosophy. We don't want to place limits on that. Any categorization must be based on the design intent/scope and methodology. Each and every hobby categorization, from stamp collecting to RC Models, are based on those two elements. Here a sample set of hobby categories:

Wargames: The designer intent is to create a game that provides some of the elements of armed conflict and some of the dynamics surrounding the principles of war, but the relationship to actual historical events is purposely secondary and often minimal.

    1. Generic: This is any game that includes some elements of war, including weapons, combat, types of units, military terms, representative playing pieces and terrain. The actual game process can be abstract. No specific events or historical period is being represented, though period weapons and combat may be used. Warhammer, Chess, and H.G. Wells' Little Wars would fit this description.

    2. Topical: This kind of game is set in a particular period or war. The pieces, names and some of the rules represent particular aspects of war during that period, but in an abstract and evocative way. Combat units, game processes, or terrain is stylized. Time, historical terrain, military units, and combat have no scale or directly represent anything specific in history. That means the game mechanics don't actually represent the history in any recognizable way compared to the actual events or environment--or no actual historical events are meant to be portrayed. BattleCry and DBA with their generic combat units, no time frame, limited terrain presentation, and the abstracted combat fit this description. So does The Sword and The Flame as the whole game is designed to play generic Colonial situations rather than actual historical engagements. It also has a stylized unit organization and no timeframe.

Historical Wargames: The intention of the designer is to recreate aspects of specific battles and wars, relying on the historical record to develop the game mechanics. More than simply providing the dynamics of warfare in general, the purpose is to capture the dynamics of a particular combat environment, a specific war or battle.

    3. Representational: This game design can recreate historical battles based on actual terrain, units and combat outcomes. However, in the design Time, Terrain, or actual Combat Units scales have been skewed or ignored. However, unlike the Topical wargame, the intent is to represent those historical factors with other mechanics that are not specifically related. This is the 'black box' kind of game which generates historical decision options and results, but doesn't do so in a dimensional way, with time, terrain and actual scale units. There are many reasons why a designer would do this, but all representational designers would have one reason in common: Those are not the elements they felt were necessary to achieve the goals of the design. Some examples of this kind of game are GrandArmee, Piquet, Principles of War, and Tactica.

    4. Scale: The three necessary indicators of this type of game require that time, terrain, and combat units are to some particular scale. Because of this, all game mechanics incorporate these 'three dimensions.' Even innovative designs like the variable length bound (VLB) fall under this category. Both simultaneous and alternating turn games can be 'scale' games. Examples of scale games include Fire & Fury, Volley & Bayonet, Combat Command, Republique, Empire, Napoleon's Battles , and From balmy to Waterloo.

Now, some observations:

  • All of the categories describe wargames.
  • The differences between the types of games are designer intent and methodology.
  • There could be any number of sub-categories under each of the four categories
  • Complexity generally goes up from #1 to #4, but it is not uniform.
  • All of the games in all of the above categories could be simulations. The last item needs some explanation.

Simulation as a Wargame Quality To make any of the four categories of games a simulation, a wargame designer would need to do the following:

1. Identify what is being simulated. In the case of Generic and Topical wargames this would be strictly specific principles of war, such as the benefits and dangers of a concentration of force, the indirect approach, or spoiling attacks. For historical wargames it would have to be the specific elements of an historical event being simulated.

2. Provide the specific sources of the designer's information. Exactly what 'reality" is being mimicked? This means that the designer must say where his got his ideas about the principles of war or what historical data was used as the description of reality being simulated. This is where accuracy comes in. The designer creates the simulation target by the data he chooses. The accuracy of the shot is how successfully the simulation mimics the data. There is an added element of accuracy for the historical wargame. The historical data must be reasonably valid and support the simulation conclusions. This requires knowing something about historiography as well as simulations. Obviously, the designer doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. He can simply design a wargame with no claim that it simulates anything.

3. The simulation goals should be clearly expressed. The designer should state the design purposes in specific terms to qualify the game as a simulation. It is important to note that complexity, the number of things simulated, does not make a game a more accurate simulation. The accuracy is in how well the design hits the target, the goals the designer has chosen. This whole more complexity=more accuracy equation was also created by SPI, and it was used to justify the huge games like the nine map monstrosity War in the Pacific. It is a silly idea. It's like saying a 300 page book is more accurate history than a 200 page book. It's the quality of the content, not quantity that establishes accuracy. A complex simulation actually has a geometrically greater chance of being inaccurate because of the increased number of variables that have to simulate reality.

4. The simulation is in the game dynamics--not in the game terms and statistics found in the rules book. The designer must provide a similar decisionmaking matrix of environmental and combat elements in the game play for his design to be called a simulation.

This means that Warhammer could have been a simulation if it had been designed to mimic some specific principles of warfare. TSTFcould well be a "Representational Historical Wargame" if there are mechanics in the game design that simulates specific elements of Colonial history. In every case, the designer would have to declare the specific intentions of his design, and provide the evidence that it does actually simulate something. Then it can be called a simulation.

This set of hobby categories does not dictate right and wrong, good or bad game designs, personal opinion or even create dichotomies. And any discussions of general game architecture (the parts of a game design) can easily be accommodated by the categories.

The reasons that some designers may actively shy away from this kin of thing is three fold:

    1. It could mean a lot more work in declaring their design intentions and providing their methodology--and in some cases, it could also mean some skill development.

    2. It holds the designer's work accountable in the sense that their methods, intentions, and sources of data are explicitly known rather than simply a set of designer's notes where they say what they feel like saying--leaving huge amounts of important information unsaid. The exact sources of information that made the designer believe what he did about history and simulations would have to be revealed. The uniformity of information this would produce could be a powerful benefit to our hobby. It would seriously cut into the "fudge factor" where the historical accuracy of a game is defended by saying "Well, I talked to this guy who is an expert on the Napoleonic wars" or "it's all just opinion anyway."

    3. It threatens to divide the hobby buyers into categories. How many would have bought BattleCry if it were categorized as a "topical wargame?" If the illusion that the game actually simulates something of ACW history can sell more copies (Just read the hype on the box top), then would the designer want to admit up front that it was never designed to simulate anything?

Many gamers shrug off such suggestions because they believe it would be impossible to get everyone in the hobby to agree-they don't seem to agree on anything. This is some of the fallout from having no common game design language or categories. Actually, other hobbies do it, and wargamers are no more rabid or individualistic than RC Modelers or stamp collectors. If those hobbiests can agree to such things, so can we. And why do they? Because of the benefits to their hobby.

So, how do other hobbies go about actually creating such universal terms and categories?

First, other hobbies start small with a few, well-placed folks. They talk through the requirements of a simple hierarchy and then agree on something. For example, I gave only four categories for wargames. Obviously, more categories can be added as well as more criteria. It all can be developed as the hobby develops. Those few, well-placed folks would be the writers in the hobby magazines who describe and critique our games, and the manufacturers who produce and market them. They all agree to start using the terms in describing the games and rules sets.

Designers will then start providing the critical design information. Some only after the writers and manufacturers have asked the same questions long enough. Finally, wargamers themselves can start consciously applying the terms and descriptions, ask the same questions of designers, and of course, buy accordingly. And why would all these folks voluntarily do this, and then continue to do it? The benefits, of course.

That's how hobbies do it. We can too. We have organizations of wargamers now that could start the conversation. If the next generation of games is to be more innovative, demonstrating more mature designs, if our hobby is to grow, then the Historical Wargaming will have to be more innovative and mature.

REFERENCES:

There are literally hundreds of books on the topics of simulations and game theory. Both have a long history. Go to google.com and type in 'simulations'. You get more than ten pages of sites, many selling simulation games, but most relating to professional designers, university groups, and even companies based on providing simulations for different research and business needs. Try "Game Theory" and you get twenty pages on google, NONE of them dealing with our wargames. A few examples of the businesses based on simulation design are:

    Imagine That, Inc. Management, company culture, and project simulations
    Bruce Rosen-South Bay Simulations, Inc. A wide variety of chemical and biological simulations
    Princeton Simulations: Engineering and computer simulations

The History of Simulations: This is a sampling of some of the more important books simply to provide a sense of the history and breath of the topic. None of them even mention wargames-except James Dunnigan's book, which never really was noticed by the mainstream simulations community.

Brams, Steven J. Game Theory and Politics, The Free Press, MacMillian Publ. 1975
Coplin, William D. ed. Simulations in the Study of Politics, Markham Pub. 1979
Dunnigan, James. Wargame Design, Simulations Publications 1975 (This is interesting in that it contains all the major ideas like "simulations vs games," while showing little interest in or knowledge of simulation design or game theory-The attitude presented in the book is one of being at the forefront any such theories. Readers will recognize almost immediately how our hobby is basically still reading from Dunnigan's book, circa 1975.
Howard, Nigel, Paradoxes of Rationality, Games, Metagames and Political Behavior. Crane-Russak Co, 1978 (Obviously, the focus of many simulation theorists at the time was politics, particularly after Watergate.)
Hausrath, Alfred H. Venture Simulations in War, Business and Politics. 1985

Current Simulation Theory and Practice:

I have picked these particular works because they either give a sense of the breath and depth of the current thinking, being mostly articles by theorists compiled by editors or they detail the simulation theories of "Discrete-Event Modeling" which is what historical wargames are all about. Zeigler is the father of Discrete-Event Modeling, and has been around for 40+ years. Have any wargame designers even heard of Zeigler? Below are just a few of the many books available on simulations.
Rubinstein, Reven Y. and Melared, Benjamin. Modern Simulation and Modeling. 1998
Banks, Jerry ed. Handbook of Simulations: Principles, Methodology, Advances, Applications, and Practice. Interscience 1999 (A primer that all game designers interested in creating simulations should have.) Law, Averill M. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. 1999
Banks, Jerry ed. et al. Discrete-Event System Simulation, (3rd Edition!!) Prentice-Hall 2000 Zeigler, et al. Theory of Modeling and Simulation: Integrating Discrete Event and Continuous Complex Dynamic Systems. Academic Press, 2000
Fisher, George, S. Discrete-Event Simulation. Springer Verlag, 2001
Sarjoughian, Hessam S. ed. Discrete Event Modeling and Simulation Technologies:: A Tapestry of Systems and Ai-Based Theories and Methodologies: A Tribute to the 60th Birthday of Bernard P. Zeigler. 2003

Game Theory:

A good deal of simulation theory can be linked to game theory-which again is fundamental to our hobby. For a brief outline of game theory and its history, go to this website:
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF GAME THEORY http://william-kinq.www.drexel.edu/top/class/histf.html
GAME THEORY htti ://william-kinq.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html

For a basic outline of competitive game theory and how "useful"/ technical terms are created, go to: THE CORE AND COMPETITION htti)://www.worldscinet.comliatr/iatr.shtml

Here are some of the pertinent books on game theory. In game theory, there are two types of games, cooperative and competitive. Listed are those dealing with competitive games.

Dresher, Melvin, The Mathematics of Games of Strategy: Theory and Applications, Dover Pub, 1982
Davis, Morton, Game Theory:: A Nontechnical Introduction 1983 (Read this book after Mr. Dunnigan's to get a sense of the theoretical and innovative distance between the game theorists in general and the leading wargame designers during the same time period.*)
Smith, John Maynard, Evolution and the Theory of Games, 1984
Harsanyi, John C. and Selten, Reinhard. A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in games. 1988
Aumann , Robert J. and Hart, Sergiu, ed. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Volume 1 1994
Myerson, Roger B. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard Univ. Press. 1997 *(Read this to see how far game theory has come, particularly compared to the thinking in our hobby.)
Issacs, Rufus, Differential Games: A Mathematical Theory with Applications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control & Organization. Dover Press 1999
Kelansky, David. The Theory of Poker. Two Plus Two Publishers 1999 (This is a very exciting book when thinking of wargame design. It also points up the inadequacies of some of our games, particularly those that are compared to poker.)
Ross, Sheldon M. Simulation 2000
Rouse, Richard. Game Theory: Theory and Practice. Wordware Publishers 2001 (includes CD)
Miller, James D. Game Theory at Work: How to Use Game Theory to Outthink and Outmaneuver your Competition. McGraw Hill 2003
Williams, J. D. The CompeatStrategyst:: Being a Primer on the Theory of Games of Strategy. 2003 (Are wargames in our hobby considered? Nope.)
Gardner, Roy, Games for Business and Economics, 2003: Gardner lists some games that are basics for game theorists and what he feels are musts for any corporate or business training program: Bankruptcy, Barbarians at the Gate, Battle of the Networks, Caveat Emptor, Conscription, Coordination, Escape and Evasion, Frogs Call for Mates, Hawk versus Dove, Mutually Assured Destruction, Majority Rule, Market Niche, Mutual Defense, Prisoner's Dilemma, Subsidized Small Business, Tragedy of the Commons, Ultimatum, Video System Coordination.

Wargame Design

Back to MWAN # 126 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com