Details Details Details
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:57 pm
Historicity, reality, accuracy are the terms that very often pop up in wargaming circles. All of those terms are related to a share of their own problems in game design.
Various perceptions are dependent on knowledge of an observer. In order to appreciate history one has to know the facts. Popular misconceptions or generalizations can play a role as well. For example, there was always more Soviets than Germans. But is it true for the border battles in opening stages of Barbarossa? Or even in selected Schwerpunkt? Or the fact about Soviet manpower relates to something else?
Realism is not fun and that is why the game design doesn’t love it. Finding an abstract representation of reality with a focus on gameplay is the way to go. But still, various people would point various realistic details as the most important (to them obviously). Accuracy becomes a problem when we try to measure something abstract or averaged out. The biggest offender is when people pull historical accuracy as an argument. History is not a science, it cannot be empirically proven. It is a scholarly discipline where our knowledge depends on what others told us. When someone pulls historical accuracy as an argument it usually means he doesn’t like something and while doing so he is giving higher meaning to his own words by anchoring it to something chiseled in stone like historical accuracy is supposed to be. I am fine if people are using the term to denote close attention to historical detail as long as they know the limitations of it. Which brings us to an interesting questions: how much attention to detail is enough and which details are important?
I am not talking about most relevant stuff like UI, interactivity in an interactive medium or gameplay itself. I am talking about those details marginal to gameplay but important for immersion. Stuff like geography, an order of battle and scenario objectives.
Some time ago in some other game, I fired up custom made scenario about Invasion of Norway. German ships had custom names and I said juuuhuu someone made attention to historical detail but the point was those ships had to be deployed on the map by the player. From a gameplay point of view sound decision, combine it as you like. But what if someone wants to enjoy in recreating historical setting? Well in order to enjoy in historical details one has to know mentioned details. Have I heard about Invasion of Norway? More than that, I read about it several times. But as anyone interested in history knows there is just too much of it. So we remember the main points and tend to forget details with time. Any activity which involves argument with details usually means referencing your sources first. Of course, some things stand out more than others. For example, out of my head, I could pull how German Cavalry Division was on the right flank of AGC at Barbarossa or how Sola airfield is to the south of Stavanger.
So how much players who know less about history can actually appreciate historical detail?
Custom names are something with which you could rub the nose of a player and it creates perception how the effort was made but in order to validate it, the player should make the effort to check its accuracy. And this isn’t going to happen often. Am I implying players should be fooled about actual attention to detail? Certainly not! Games can have educational character and like all things relating to education it will be put to good use only by a minority, but a quality minority. Also, historical research before scenario production can be compared as ...taunting before a battle. So while referencing your details why not to use it anyway. What I am saying is that some details stand out more than others. Some details have to be sacrificed for gameplay. And some details take too much time to resolve and resources invested in it will not be proportional to the appreciation of it. It is just a question of measure, knowing what is important and not being crude about it. For example how about resolving state boundary between Romania, Slovakia and Poland in 1939?
Recently I was researching geography of Byelorussia and switched to neighboring Lithuania as well. I was interested in the size of settlements in 1941 and their importance to major combat events. I also read an article about Army Group North and said to myself ...it is Unity of Command time.
First thing I noticed on Campaign Map is river Niemen going through Vilnius which is wrong.
Niemen west of Minsk actually forms recognizable bulge where Soviet armies at Novogrudek (Navahrudak) were encircled. Dvina is a toponym often used but this river is actually Zapadnaya Dvina because there were two Dvina rivers in USSR.
When playing AGN scenario I got this feeling of infantry lagging behind armor as mentioned in the article. When Panzer Group crossed Zapadnaya Dvina their units were ordered to halt and wait for infantry support which was not very well depicted due to rush for Pskov. Crossing at Jekabpils of one of Panzer Corps was not depicted at all. Yes, the bridge was actually blown up before Germans captured it which bring us to an idea to include the capture of intact bridges in the game. If this is not done in time they would be blown up by a script and not present objective anymore. Gameplay effect is also to slow down advance due to the need to build another bridge. Tip at Daugavpils objective how this crossing is the fastest way to reach Pskov is misleading because units would outrun their supply if there is no connection to railroad further North. Also, Panzer Corps at Daugavpils was employed at bypassing Stalin Line which is not the shortest route. Railroad net on the map simply doesn’t reinforce the historical setting in this case. While infantry fell behind while reaching Daugavpils it was meaningless to move them on the map to reach Pskov. They lost gameplay purpose which was immersion breaking. The only way to solve this is to separate setting in two scenarios.
Just look at AGC scenario was complete immersion breaking experience. Brest fortress held for longest. Bialystok was bypassed and pocket reduced latter. Both towns are set for early capture in-game. AGC performed double pincer envelopment where army elements made the first pincer. Grodno, which is not objective at all is a good location to depict it as well as Boldin launched a counteroffensive in the direction of Grodno. The second pincer closed at Minsk. Providing objectives on route to Minsk is fine like Baranovichi and Vilnius should be a good candidate on the north. Speaking of varied objectives destruction of enemy formations is a valid objective on an operational scale. Early stages of Barbarossa can be described as wipeouts.
Is this a rant about missing historical details in Unity of Command? Well not really. I am capable to appreciate other people's interpretations of it. Certainly, enough research went into this game and it shows. But it doesn’t maximize it, or to say it differently, some details are not over engineered which is fine in the end.
Purpose of this writing is to express the debate I had with myself how much historical and geographical detail is enough in game design. And the answer is the main points should be covered but the focus should be on gameplay. Dwelling to deep into historical/geographical details will result either in people not being able to appreciate it due to ignorance or knowledgable people will find some missing link which will spoil their pleasure for a seemingly insignificant reason.
In gameplay sense of the word what I would like this game to develop to is to provide replay value based on different approaches to scenario rather than exercise dominant strategy until full efficiency is achieved. How interactivity in an interactive medium can influence level design? Well, that is a good question to think about.
Various perceptions are dependent on knowledge of an observer. In order to appreciate history one has to know the facts. Popular misconceptions or generalizations can play a role as well. For example, there was always more Soviets than Germans. But is it true for the border battles in opening stages of Barbarossa? Or even in selected Schwerpunkt? Or the fact about Soviet manpower relates to something else?
Realism is not fun and that is why the game design doesn’t love it. Finding an abstract representation of reality with a focus on gameplay is the way to go. But still, various people would point various realistic details as the most important (to them obviously). Accuracy becomes a problem when we try to measure something abstract or averaged out. The biggest offender is when people pull historical accuracy as an argument. History is not a science, it cannot be empirically proven. It is a scholarly discipline where our knowledge depends on what others told us. When someone pulls historical accuracy as an argument it usually means he doesn’t like something and while doing so he is giving higher meaning to his own words by anchoring it to something chiseled in stone like historical accuracy is supposed to be. I am fine if people are using the term to denote close attention to historical detail as long as they know the limitations of it. Which brings us to an interesting questions: how much attention to detail is enough and which details are important?
I am not talking about most relevant stuff like UI, interactivity in an interactive medium or gameplay itself. I am talking about those details marginal to gameplay but important for immersion. Stuff like geography, an order of battle and scenario objectives.
Some time ago in some other game, I fired up custom made scenario about Invasion of Norway. German ships had custom names and I said juuuhuu someone made attention to historical detail but the point was those ships had to be deployed on the map by the player. From a gameplay point of view sound decision, combine it as you like. But what if someone wants to enjoy in recreating historical setting? Well in order to enjoy in historical details one has to know mentioned details. Have I heard about Invasion of Norway? More than that, I read about it several times. But as anyone interested in history knows there is just too much of it. So we remember the main points and tend to forget details with time. Any activity which involves argument with details usually means referencing your sources first. Of course, some things stand out more than others. For example, out of my head, I could pull how German Cavalry Division was on the right flank of AGC at Barbarossa or how Sola airfield is to the south of Stavanger.
So how much players who know less about history can actually appreciate historical detail?
Custom names are something with which you could rub the nose of a player and it creates perception how the effort was made but in order to validate it, the player should make the effort to check its accuracy. And this isn’t going to happen often. Am I implying players should be fooled about actual attention to detail? Certainly not! Games can have educational character and like all things relating to education it will be put to good use only by a minority, but a quality minority. Also, historical research before scenario production can be compared as ...taunting before a battle. So while referencing your details why not to use it anyway. What I am saying is that some details stand out more than others. Some details have to be sacrificed for gameplay. And some details take too much time to resolve and resources invested in it will not be proportional to the appreciation of it. It is just a question of measure, knowing what is important and not being crude about it. For example how about resolving state boundary between Romania, Slovakia and Poland in 1939?
Recently I was researching geography of Byelorussia and switched to neighboring Lithuania as well. I was interested in the size of settlements in 1941 and their importance to major combat events. I also read an article about Army Group North and said to myself ...it is Unity of Command time.
First thing I noticed on Campaign Map is river Niemen going through Vilnius which is wrong.
Niemen west of Minsk actually forms recognizable bulge where Soviet armies at Novogrudek (Navahrudak) were encircled. Dvina is a toponym often used but this river is actually Zapadnaya Dvina because there were two Dvina rivers in USSR.
When playing AGN scenario I got this feeling of infantry lagging behind armor as mentioned in the article. When Panzer Group crossed Zapadnaya Dvina their units were ordered to halt and wait for infantry support which was not very well depicted due to rush for Pskov. Crossing at Jekabpils of one of Panzer Corps was not depicted at all. Yes, the bridge was actually blown up before Germans captured it which bring us to an idea to include the capture of intact bridges in the game. If this is not done in time they would be blown up by a script and not present objective anymore. Gameplay effect is also to slow down advance due to the need to build another bridge. Tip at Daugavpils objective how this crossing is the fastest way to reach Pskov is misleading because units would outrun their supply if there is no connection to railroad further North. Also, Panzer Corps at Daugavpils was employed at bypassing Stalin Line which is not the shortest route. Railroad net on the map simply doesn’t reinforce the historical setting in this case. While infantry fell behind while reaching Daugavpils it was meaningless to move them on the map to reach Pskov. They lost gameplay purpose which was immersion breaking. The only way to solve this is to separate setting in two scenarios.
Just look at AGC scenario was complete immersion breaking experience. Brest fortress held for longest. Bialystok was bypassed and pocket reduced latter. Both towns are set for early capture in-game. AGC performed double pincer envelopment where army elements made the first pincer. Grodno, which is not objective at all is a good location to depict it as well as Boldin launched a counteroffensive in the direction of Grodno. The second pincer closed at Minsk. Providing objectives on route to Minsk is fine like Baranovichi and Vilnius should be a good candidate on the north. Speaking of varied objectives destruction of enemy formations is a valid objective on an operational scale. Early stages of Barbarossa can be described as wipeouts.
Is this a rant about missing historical details in Unity of Command? Well not really. I am capable to appreciate other people's interpretations of it. Certainly, enough research went into this game and it shows. But it doesn’t maximize it, or to say it differently, some details are not over engineered which is fine in the end.
Purpose of this writing is to express the debate I had with myself how much historical and geographical detail is enough in game design. And the answer is the main points should be covered but the focus should be on gameplay. Dwelling to deep into historical/geographical details will result either in people not being able to appreciate it due to ignorance or knowledgable people will find some missing link which will spoil their pleasure for a seemingly insignificant reason.
In gameplay sense of the word what I would like this game to develop to is to provide replay value based on different approaches to scenario rather than exercise dominant strategy until full efficiency is achieved. How interactivity in an interactive medium can influence level design? Well, that is a good question to think about.