Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings all,

I like to muse a bit about wargame design as if I know something about the subject. I don't. Well, I don't know anymore than anyone else anyway. My latest musing was about creating or having a Point-of-View (POV) within the framework or your rules design.

POV. I see this acronym all over the world of Social Media and the Internet. It usually sets-up a joke with a funny image. However, when it comes to Wargame Design POV is more than a punchline.

So, what does POV even mean? POV is short-hand for Point of View. You may hear this term related to the role a player plays in the military structure of the game they are playing. I.e. a Corp commander or Divisional Quartermaster is the POV of the game. However, that is not what I want to address in this post. In the case of Wargame Design and the theory related to it, POV pertains to the Point of View a designer brings to how the game they are building should be played. It is through this lens that a designer makes decisions about the nature of the game, what it is trying to do on the table, and what "reality" the rules are trying to reflect.

Anyway, that's how it all gets started and goes from there. You can read the full story here is you want:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/10/wargame-design-having-pov.html



However, here is the "short" version.
1. The designer should have a POV of how the warfare they are trying to game for works.
2. Historical games have all sorts of theories on how warfare for the time period worked, and any game based off history should be clear which theory they are going with.
3. Even non-historical games should have a "this is how warfare in this setting works" and stick to it.
4. Not everyone will agree with the POV your game takes, and that's okay.

This POV will help you build the basics for your game design and act as guard rails for what your rules will cover, keeps the whole cohesive, and avoids common wargame design traps.

What do you think? Have you run across a game that had a different POV of a period than you did? What was your reaction? Have you ever been swayed to think about a period or style of warfare differently thanks to a games POV?

I think the appropriate level of command detail is very much a feature of good wargame design. Creating an Eastern Front game that requires the player to move each individual division may be engaging, but it's utterly unrealistic.

Some year ago I designed a simulator for theater-level Air Force command decisions. It was a solitaire game, but taught as a classroom session, and the players were given a series of force-building options and then confronted with a crisis. The goal was for them to mate their assets with a plan that effectively utilized them. This was supposed to be part of a training module, but of course the contractor declared it outside their requirement, and it was yet another example of military wargaming futility.

I think West End's RAF is a great game in this respect, and it's designed for solitaire play. Indeed, for about a year, I had a copy set out as a display at my work station to try to explain what wargaming could do.