1. GAMES 1. Game. A competition within a given set of rules. (Does the design make for a good game? Is the competition fair or balanced? Should it be? Is the objective clear and reasonable? Are the rules well-written in teens of style and presentation? Are they logical, clear, and sufficient?) 2. Model. A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of some reallife subject. (What are the intended limits of the model? How well does the model represent the object it models? How well does the model work? Is the logic of the model adequate? Does the model help the player "suspend disbelief'? How selective is the model? Should anything have been added or deleted from the selection? Does the model translate well to a game in ways such as playing space, figures, terrain, etc.? How, and to what extent, is historical information incorporated into the model? What are the designer's claims, explanations, or assumptions about the information he selects for use in the model? How much is designer's opinion or taste? How much is designer's interpretation of some research? Does he list the research he used for a particular representation?). 3. Simulation game. This uses a representative model for some purpose. The participants seek to achieve some agreed upon objective within an established set of rules. The objective may not be to compete, but to evaluate the participants, increase their knowledge concerning the simulated scenario, or achieve other stated goals. (Is the purpose clear? Are the goals appropriate? Are the goals met? Can the goals be met? How well is the model used? Is the model sufficient for the stated purposes? 4. War Game. A simulation game representing military activity or battlefield decisions. (Are the modeled military aspects and rules constraints proper for this simulation? Do the roles given to the players make sense in this game? Do the players have the opportunity under this game's conditions to exercise an appropriate amount of influence?) II. BASIC WARGAME PROCESS 1. OBSERVE the game environment to obtain information 2. ASSESS THE SITUATION to derive knowledge 3. DECIDE what to do within the options allowed in the game 4. CARRY OUT THE ACTION caused by the decision the according to the rules 5. RETURN to #1 when the game allows (Does this game make these steps available to the players? How is this done? How smoothly does this take place in the game? Is the information obtained and the knowledge derived sufficient to play the game? Are the appropriate options accessible to the players, and does the game allow decisions to be acted upon appropriately?). III. PLAYER ROLES 1. Type of decisions players make in the game 2. Command level of decisions to be made 3. Quantity of decisions made by a player (Is the relationship between types, level, and quantity of game decisions for players logical? Are the types, level and quantity of decisions in this game appropriate for those players who are intended to implement them? How is ease of play or speed of play affected?). IV. DESIGN FEATURE, CHARACTERISTICS and STRUCTURE 1. Game Event. A discrete action, change, or interaction represented at a particular point in time. (Does this game clearly define what things are, how they relate to each other in game terms, and how players are to use them? Are they presented in a useful and timely fashion?). 2. Fidelity. One's opinion or rationalized evaluation about the degree to which the "processes" in the simulation model relate or conform to their real life counterpart "processes". A wargame is not real, nor realistic, but it can try to mimic a real-life activity process with a game process. (How much do "real world" processes differ from their representation in this game? What "fidelity level" is claimed by the designer? Is there a way to test that claim against known examples? What is the comparison between the fidelity claimed versus the fidelity actually achieved, in someone else's opinion?). 3. Heuristic. The problem-solving techniques available to players when confronted with choices. (Are the player options in this game reasonable and useful? Do they derive from a prior set of options in a logical manner? Do the choices made lead to future options in a sensible way? Could the methods used in this game to present and use the available options be improved or modified? Are player responses and choices open-ended, limited, or closed? What part does uncertainty play, if any, and how does that manifest itself in the game?). 4. Resolution. The degree of detail and precision used to represent the real world aspects of the model. (Is the detail to be considered and used by players too "coarse" or too "fine" for the design's stated aims? Does it make the game more difficult or easier to play?' What scales are used in the game, and why? Is the resolution level a help or a hindrance to players? Is it necessary or unnecessary for this particular game? Does it further the purpose of the simulation? What effect, if any, does the resolution level have on the aesthetics and function of the design? Which elements are represented by abstractions, and to what extent? Are these abstractions justified? How well do they mesh with the rest of the design?). 5. Systems. Components for specific functions eg., rules for morale, fire combat, movement, etc. (Does the game have too few, too many or the right amount of differentiated sections in the rules; eg., if it has "fire combat" and "close combat" sections, would it be better if it instead had "small arms", "artillery" and "melee" sections? Do the sections relate well to each other? Do they overlap concepts and cause confusion? Are there vague gaps or unnecessary duplication in them? Does the system do what it is supposed to do? Are the game mechanisms efficient in play and in representing real outcomes?). V. INTERNAL SUB-SYSTEMS 1. Predetermined Results. Parts of the game in which a given input will always produce the same output. Something that happens automatically in the game without a random or variable modification. (Are the "automatic" values and relationships in this game appropriate for the subject matter? Should any of them be made subject to some random or limited probability, such as a roll of the dice? Should any currently variable values be changed into deterministic values in this game? Can players replace the given numbers, ratings, or values into this game system easily or at all? How are the given values related to each other and to the design of the game? Are some more important than others? If a value is changed in one area, what effect will that have on other parts of the game? Are such effects easy to be seen, or are there subtle effects elsewhere that the player needs to be aware of? Does the designer's model depend upon using the values he has assigned, or will it still work when values are modified, removed, added to, or substituted?). 2. Chance. Parts of the game are where the results are determined by using one or more random variables, or in which a given input will produce an output according to some statistical distribution. (Are the probabilities and ranges used in the game appropriate? Are the game mechanisms used efficient or useful? Do they help or hinder the game?) 3. Time scale. The duration of time for an event to take place in real life, and how that is represented in the wargame. (Is the time scale used rational, useful, helpful, appropriate, and necessary for this game? Are the durations of game events reasonable or sensible in this game?). 4. Simulation Time. The length of time it takes to play parts or all of the game. (Is this a negative or a positive aspect of the game? Does it have an impact on a player's decisions in the game? What effect does it have, if any?). 5 Reference Time, or "Game Time" on the tabletop. (is this accessible to players at appropriate times during the game, without allowing any improper decisions to be made by them? What is the method of keeping track of time, and how does that affect the game? ). 6. Time Flow Mechanism. The approach used to perform time advancement. ( Does the system work efficiently in this game? Is it easy to understand, or wellunderstood by players? Does it cause any "bottlenecks" or unnecessary slowdowns in play? Does the sequence of play mesh well with the time-flow [or game-progression] mechanism, so that players are given appropriate opportunities to take appropriate actions? Are there loopholes that can be manipulated improperly? Is there a better way to do it?). 7. Collective decision cycles. Where players must make decisions at the same point in the game. 8. Independent decision cycles. Where each decision maker does so independently of others, and, thus, potentially at different points in the wargame. (Does this game have collective, independent, or both types of decision cycles? Should this be changed? Is the play of the game affected by this?) Analysis The ZIT is not the only possible way to categorize wargames. I'm sure it could be expanded or contracted. Someone else may have a better one, or a different method. However, a list like this does illustrate many of the objective categories to be found in a wargame design. If a wargamer likes or dislikes something about a game, it is likely to be about one or more specific areas that can be identified in this sample. I'm sure that different people would express themselves in different ways, but it would be helpful if they were using commonly understood or recognizable categories (even if they didn't use the same formal "name" for that category). It also means that when wargame designers or commentators make statements about the subject, it becomes easier to figure out precisely where the complaints and compliments are centered, and therefore easier for the reader to compare his own views. Furthermore, if there is something not working right in a game, it is easier to spot where the problem or relationship is if one has these definitions to work with as a starting point. Perhaps a game that was full of promise but kept getting bogged down in one area of play would benefit if its different elements were easy to separate and test or examine individually, Sometimes something may not "feel right" about a game, but it isn't clear where the problem is because "cause and effect" in that game design might be hard to distinguish. Reading the words of the different Napoleonic game designers earlier in this article is quite interesting because of the similarities and the differences in the definitions, purposes, and models they put forth. It might be a useful exercise for someone experienced in those games to apply the ZIT to them, and see if any insights can be derived from it. If wargamers can generally agree on what the different parts are that go into a game design, it may become clear that previous coined terms, or arguments about definitions for "types" of games (or "types" of gainers) are really tempests in a teapot. We might find, for example, that the topic being debated about a new game that has just come out really doesn't give a complete picture of that game. The subject of disagreement might occupy just one niche in the overall structure of that game's design, and debates about those aspects do not need to distract us from examining other, more important characteristics of that game. Conversely, if that particular niche is the one that is of most importance to a reader, a template like that suggested above would make it easier for him to ignore the inessential points and focus in on the one section that is most important to his own purchasing decisions. Private Zuparko walks into the regimental surgeon's office, and says, "Doc, I've got this big ZIT and it just doesn't seem right whenever I look at it." So the doctor told him not to look at it any more... Note: I would be a real cad if I didn't acknowledge with thanks the valuable contributions to this article by Michael Collins, Bill Haggart, James Machin, Howie Muir, and also Rob Hamper and THE COURIER, but I'm not going to. I'm too busy getting my name into the article in as many places as possible! Zuparko Information Template The Definition of Wargaming Back to MWAN # 127 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