For some time now, I’ve been working on a set of American Civil War naval wargaming rules (more and that some other time). This naturally led me to thinking about naval wargaming in general and what I like or dislike about it specifically. Which, in turn, led me to think about games and game design in general. The result was a bit of a muddle, but prodded by David Manley, I decided to write it down, in the hope that it might serve as a basis for discussion.
When I started to get into naval miniature wargaming a couple of years ago, the first thing that struck me was that, in contrary to land-based miniature wargames, what is sometimes called the simulationist approach to gaming is still very strong. In this context I mean by simulationist an approach that uses process-oriented mechanisms, tries to represent as many technical and quantifiable details as possible, often neglecting human or qualitative factors such as command and control, that involves players on all levels without assigning them a fixed role and that downplays what is usually called “friction”, namely the unplanned and often unplannable things that happen in war.
In hobby wargaming, this approach reached its peak during the 1970s and 1980s, with rules by Wargames Research Group for land games and Harpoon (which I owned as a teenager) for naval games usually cited as examples. In land miniature wargames, the simulationist approach is nowadays almost gone. Contemporary land wargames usually have result-orientated instead of process-orientated mechanisms, they put the player into a certain perspective or role, and they include command, control, and friction. All those things, I think, represent important innovations that would also benefit naval wargames. Let me look at them in detail and argue why I think so.
1. Designers of process-oriented games often argue that their mechanisms simulate a real-world procedure. So, for example, rolling to hit simulates the probability of a weapon to hit an object, and the traditional next step, rolling for penetration, simulates the probability of a projectile going through the armour of a ship. If you follow with a roll for hit location, this simulates the probability of a projectile hitting this or that piece of machinery. This procedure can involve lots of modifiers and tables, with the number of tables often seen as an indicator of how realistic rules are. Result-oriented mechanism, on the other hand, take a known result as their departing point. So, for example, you know from historical data that there is a certain probability, that, when firing for 15 minutes, your ship will cause enough damage on another ship to reduce its ability to fight by a certain factor. You now just need a mechanism to test if this event occurs – often a dice roll (or an opposed dice roll, which is more fun as it involves both players).
The reason that process-oriented shooting and damage procedures with lots of tables are often seen as more realistic is that they create a narrative with clear causes and effects. In terms of game design, they are storytelling machines: in discrete consecutive steps, they tell the story of a projectile hitting something and then causing this or that effect. If you like that kind of story, you’ll anticipate each step with suspense and therefore enjoy those kinds of mechanisms. Personally, I don’t like them because they take too long for something that has no decision points. But apart from such personal preferences, I don’t think they necessarily give more realistic results than the other approach, especially as for many historical periods, the exact and detailed data you need to create such procedures and tables without making them fully fictional is lacking.
On the other hand, result-oriented mechanisms quickly give me the necessary information (e.g. that my ship is slower due to damage) which I, as a player, need according to my role in the game.
2. This leads to the second aspect, namely into which perspective or role the game puts the player. In land wargames, it has become common to ask at which “level” a game is set: corps level or brigade level or company level etc. This usually designates the role the player takes on in the game. As their real-life counterpart, a player playing a corps commander will not be bothered with positioning the skirmishers of the 33rd Regiment of Foot. In many naval wargames, the player’s role is undecided or vague: They must make decisions usually made by the ship’s commander, but then they also have to get involved in the nitty gritty of targeting, shooting and resolving damage. When I talked about this to a friend, he said that naval games would be boring if players only had the role of the commander, because there is just too little to do. But surely this is a fault of the rules and nothing that reflects reality – I can’t imagine a captain leaving the bridge to squeeze off a couple of shots from B turret because he is bored by his duties. Wouldn’t it rather be the task of the game designer to make the role of the commander enjoyable by providing challenging rules for command and control instead of just adding details elsewhere to prevent the players from losing interest?
3. Mechanisms for command and control have become commonplace in land wargames, with some very innovative examples. Some of the efforts I have seen in naval wargaming try to emulate real-life procedures by using flags or similar contrivances. But I don’t think this is necessary, on the contrary, I think it’s a dead end as it stays too close to the thing it wants to model. I’ve never seen a land wargame use Chinese whispers or string-and-can telephones to simulate the transmission of orders. Admittedly, there was a time when written orders were en vogue, but this has since long been replaced by more interesting and efficient ways of modelling command and control, as embodied in the innovative activation mechanisms in games such as Chain of Command. This also ties into the issue of friction, as friction is often most visible when hampering command and control. No one would deny that friction played at least as big a role on sea as on land, but I have rarely seen it implemented.
Considering these points, I would argue that there is not more simulation in the simulationist approach than in other, more abstract approaches. I’ve recently listened to a podcast discussing naval wargames and I was struck by a couple of comments. They did acknowledge the lack of command-and-control mechanisms in many naval wargames, but then stated that adding them would make the game too complex. But if too much complexity is the problem, then why give up command and control mechanisms? Why not simplify shooting and resolving damage instead? I don’t think the men serving under Nelson would agree that the hardware was more important than the leadership of the fleet, and I don’t think a game can claim to be a simulation without accounting for such things.
People might argue that things like leadership can’t be simulated because they are hard to quantify and the mechanisms used to model them are too abstract or “gamey”. That’s why I try to avoid the term simulation and prefer to use the “translation” instead. The concept of translation hints at one important fact: whatever you do, you must use the means provided by the medium you translate into. If you translate Shakespeare’s sonnets to German, you must use the German language to express whatever Shakespeare wanted to express. There is simply no other way. This, of course, opens a lot of choices: Do I go for a literal translation, trying to get the meaning of the individual words right, but ignoring the rhyming scheme? Do I stick to the rhymes and sacrifice the exact meaning of some words? What to do with ambiguous words, or puns? One thing is certain: I won’t be able to do everything at once, and I can’t use any other means than those the German language provides.
The same, I think, is true of games: If you want to make a game about ACW ironclads fighting each other, you can only use the means of games. I can’t shoot a cannon ball through your living space or bolt iron plates to my window. Fortunately, games are an incredibly rich and varied medium, offering lots of tools (mechanisms) to achieve all kinds of effects. None of those tools are “closer to reality” than others. On the podcast mentioned before, someone said that wargames should not use mechanics that are too far from what people do in reality, so you shouldn’t make players solve a puzzle for instance. But is rolling dice really closer to what a gunnery officer on a warship does than solving a puzzle?
Of course, one could argue that rolling dice is a method for resolving objective probabilities, while solving a puzzle just tests a subjective skill (like guessing distances in Fletcher Pratt’s game). But if a game puts a player into a role (a captain or admiral), there might be other things than objective probabilities that are interesting to explore – things like behaviour under stress, the ability to prioritise or allocate resources, or the willingness to make decisions based on incomplete information. All of those aspects can contribute to the enjoyment of a game, as players of rules like David Manley’s Broadside and Salvo (resource allocation via action points) or TooFatLardies’ Kiss me, Hardy (stress and incomplete information due to dynamic turn order) can testify.
I want to end here, as this is already too long. I guess my conclusion is that I would like to see more naval wargames designers experiment with new and innovative mechanisms to translate problems of command and control, friction and numerous other things I haven’t touched upon (and probably don’t think about) that mattered to historical commanders of ships. And for those that want to take on other roles than that of a ship’s commander, lets experiment with campaign systems (as has been done by David Manley and recently Sam Mustafa) or even with ship design games (such as the fun little game published by Drachinifel some time ago). I think there is a lot of potential for experimentation and innovation and I’m looking forward to seeing what people come up with.
The Raft 
The number 1 reason I gave up wargaming was this very change. I want a game of skill with minimal luck…the whole “activation” mechanic drives me insane – and that’s why I gave up on the whole thing – and instead went into games like Dungeons & Dragons where you are your avatar in the game – and it does what you tell it to do.
Modern wargaming is just *WAY* too random for my tastes…and I don’t particularly care if the mechanics are (or are not) realistic…because in truth, very little about these games is realistic in the first place.
Chess would not be improved by rolling dice to see if you’re allowed to move a piece.
Thanks for your comment! It’s always interesting how different people want different things from games. I don’t like chess exactely because it has no random factor – for me, a certain bit of randomness makes a game interesting (too much makes it arbitrary, but I guess we would disagree on how much too much is). In wargames, I like the feeling of not being in total control, because this mirrors what I have read in historical research, which is part of the thing for me.
I also play RPGs (and used to play D&D for a while), and I want other things from those kind of games, like experiencing a captivating story.
What a very interesting and thought-provoking piece! I wholeheartedly agree. When reading accounts of naval actions like Jutland or Tsushima what seems to have had most influence on the course of the Battle is the uncertainty of what was going on and the confusion that prevailed, causing all kinds of actions and errors that none of the commanders did or indeed could forsee. That is very hard to recreate on a tabletop where all players can see all that is going on. A game that recreates that confusion and uncertainty is for me much more attractive than one that models all technical aspects of shooting and penetrating armour (even though that cannot of course be ignored completely). I am looking forward to learning more of your thoughts and solutions!
Thank you for your kind comment! I’m really heartened that I’m not the only one who enjoys friction and command & control mechanics in naval wargames.
Not all naval eras were the same…
In the age of sail you get more statistical averaging, because there were more guns, and there were very few critical hits. Morale was probably more important in this era as well than it was with dreadnoughts. So design for effect may be more appropriate for AoS than dreadnoughts.
In the age of sail it was also more common for all ships to be able to see each other, at least before serious firing started. So you get different communication problems.
Thank you, I agree, it’s important to take the period specific problems into account.
Great post, and well thought out. Anonymous’ s point above about different eras is important, as is the range of action represented. One only has to think about Trafalgar, Jutland, and Midway to see how command and range of action made those battles more or less subject to friction.
I have been thinking about the same sort of thing (in a far less structured way) with regards to Space naval games. Morale is seemingly never an issue, crews are identical in performance, and there is no command and control… that rash young destroyer captain always perfectly shadows the cruiser to provide cover from torpedoes, and never rushes off on his own trying to get in his own torpedo shots. On the other hand, space naval games, being more abstract to start with, are much better about damaging systems without simulation per se.
the above post was mine btw, not used to wordpress allowing anonymous posting.
Thanks for your kind comments! Space naval games are another fascinating topic… I find the depiction of space battles in Jack Campbell’s Lost Fleet series quite fascinating, with the informational delay caused by the distances… and the differences between disciplined formations and rash attacks due to implusive commanders.
“I want to end here, as this is already too long.” No it’s not!! Would have happily read twice as long! Great article, and I agree with the content. To assuage the previous comments, there is no reason that simulation naval wargaming needs to be impacted by adding more games with friction and uncertainty. Everyone can be happy!
Modern naval warfare is not my particular focus but I assume the technical uncertainties are reduced, since communications and battle space knowledge have improved so much (hard to not be seen on radar). What remains as a variable then? Does morale feature in a modern ships company? I suspect less than a land based unit. Human fallibility, leader and crew experience, response times, the decision space must be open to uncertainty.
Would it be fair to say that WW2 naval warfare was the last period with major uncertainty, with the lack of radar until late war?
Napoleonic naval warfare appears to live among friction, from chaotic signalling systems to ships managing highly variable weather conditions, crew morale, leadership qualities, gun and sailing skills, to the point that quantifiable technical components (gunnery calibre and probability of hit) is only one component among many, though it is fulfilling to see a mainsail come down.
You mentioned some Age of Sail rulesets having variables built in, and I would also add command range at the fleet scale in Flying Colors and Captain and Crew cards in Sails of Glory which represent skills and experience allowing initiative and gunnery advantages that can be played at any time.
Are the variables and the chaos of combat so reduced in modern naval warfare? I suspect not. Perfect information may be available at the start, but the command of the situation must vary under the deluge of information. Imagine the fleet sailing to the Falklands, or the Moskva dealing with multiple drone and missile attacks.
I would welcome naval games with more friction and flavour. Will we see naval games with card driven modifiers? The mechanisms are well established and the narratives are enhanced….
Great article, thanks for posting.
Thanks for the kind words. You make a lot of really good points and touch on many facinating issues. I know only little about modern naval warfare, but I found the book “Understanding Victory” by Geoffrey Till very instructive. The most modern period he covers is the Falklands, but he stresses command and control as an important factor over all periods. I’d be especially interested in exploring the concept of battlefield awareness (or situational awareness) in game mechanics… A card driven mechanic could be a very interesting solution for this.
Hello Wien Freiwilliger I had from last century some command and semi solo rules for ww2 naval, but can apply to others with a bit of adaptations. attached. the first is the way it was captured, the second is my slight fiddling with it. happy drifting jc
I’d be very interested in the command and semi solo WW2 rules – do you have my email adress? Thanks for your help!
I enjoyed your post. Admittedly I’m more process-oriented. I posted a response of sorts—land games, though—in my blog* where I ask regarding results-oriented, why not both? When contemporary games throw out the judge and hidden set-up/movement, they need to build extra rules for friction and fog of war. Fewer rules and more neophyte players (apart from the judge who learns enough to handle the scenario he’s constructed) naturally lead to chaos and confusion.
In a naval wargame setting, many players will likely provide a better (which is to say chaotic fog-filled result) than hoping to find the “ideal” ruleset for two experienced and opinionated players.
PS I have my wargamecampaign.wordpress.com blog where I opine on wargame aspects.
*https://www.combatrules.com/post/narrative-suspense
Thank you for your comment and your considered reply on your blog, which I enjoyed a lot. I play a lot of role-playing games and have carried that approach over to wargaming with semi-free-Kriegsspiel type of games (actually, I want to do a naval one soon). But those have all been set at the operational level, not the tactical one. It would be interesting to try a tactical one, but I have the fear that it might take too much time to be practical to play in an evening.
Another thing with the RPG approach is that you need someone to play the role of the DM or umpire. From RPGs, I know that this role tends to stick to the same person, who then gets little opportunity to play himself…
And thanks for the reminder that much depends, as always in games, on the play community – do you have a small or large group? What kind of mechanisms and detail do the enjoy? Etc. I have a group of people I very much enjoy playing with, and in the end, I will go with rules the group enjoys.
P.S.: Thanks for pointing me to your blogs, I’ll follow them with interest.
Interesting post. I think the issue is “what are we simulating”; and all the hit, location, penetration, damage procedure games are simulating physics rather than combat. No crewman or commander “sees” that the round impacted at just the right angle to penetrate the turret armor. He’s dead or wounded or he knows A turret is out of action and needs to decide what to do next.
Morale also has a place even in modern naval combat. Not that part of the crew will run away, but that a ship captain or task force commander will decide enough is enough and break off action. Few fights continue until the last ship is sunk, often the only ships lost are those which sink suddenly or are too damaged to escape! The Japanese are notable in this in WW2, rather unexpectedly, with several notable battles in which they were on the verge of accomplishing their mission, but sailed away instead.
Morale or common sense, yes, most commanders would decide they are fighting an ueven battle and avoid combat. It is when that big mistake is made, an admiral thought they had the upper hand to discover the cunning enemy is about to show them otherwise. “A willing foe and sea room” makes for a good battle (and game).
Thank you! I like your point about simulating physics rather than combat, this is an interesting distinction that might be worthwhile to persue. And I totally agree with the role of morale in naval combat.
Great article, thanks Thomas, you have addressed a lot of points about gaming that I hold dear. I like your comment about a captain hoofing down to ‘B’ turret to let off a few rounds, obviously that it not how it works. I would characterise things such as firing guns/missiles/countermeasures as being just tactical doctrine. A missile inbound ?….turn on CWIS, an enemy ship alongside ? …start firing broadsides. These things occur automatically (even if you then roll the chance of splashing the missile). The real fun, in my opinion, revolves around the command decisions, how to position your age of sail ship(s) to gain an advantage (raking) or remain radar silent (EMCON) to prevent the enemy localising (and identifying) your assets. On the tactical doctrine level, you train sailors to fire guns, locate contacts on sonar, fight fires, counterflood. Essentially training, no real need to simulate this past the *level* of training (rounds per turn, chance of detecting a target) which can be factored in. What is left is, I think, the essence of Naval wargaming, Where do you lay the sonobuoys ? Do you shepherd the submarine into an area using active sonar ? AAW vs ASW screens ? You can simulate the sharing of information and command intention as a form of friction between commanders (Jutland springs to mind). Great article, the days of gnashing my teeth trying to work out the simulation that was Harpoon are well left behind.
The search for the holy grail continues 🙂
Thanks for the kind words! I like your point about doctrine and how doctrine-based decisions can, in terms of game mechanics, be regarded as happening automatically. This gets even more interesting (and perhaps complicated) if we think about not only how doctrine differed according to historical period and navy, but also how important doctrine was at all? I think in modern times, its central, but I’m not so sure about earlier periods. In the period that interests me most at the moment, the ACW, it seems that doctrine was in flux and, in many cases, not existant, and every commander tried his own methods. It would also be interesting to pit a doctrine-based navy against one that is more depedant on communication – this might result in an interesting asymmetry not on the level of technology, but on the level of decisions the player is involved in.
I did a bit more thinking about ACW and doctrine. Innovation in warfare is always taking place, in every facet. Even the apparent stagnation of Age of sail battles, lasting 200 years or so with the high point being Trafalgar I guess, leaves room to deviate from what is considered sound practice. WWII was one rich period where we moved from one technological innovation, exploited it, found countermeasures and then the next technology came into play. The predicted bullseye war of the 70s-80s was meant to be a game changer. Anyhow, rambling a bit here, point is the ACW period was interesting with the development of new warships, but that goes across all levels of military history.
That’s true. I guess each period has its own areas in which innovation and change happens. The interesting thing would then be to model those areas. In the ACW, I think it was the technology and the tactics (ramming, but also wilder ideas like Flusser lashing together ships to try to entangle a Confederate ram in between etc.), but also the battlefield (rivers posing very special challenges) and the personnel (lots of untrained volunteers). The incredible speed of building navies also meant that ships most of the time did not reach the standards of design and construction of British or European vessels, with the result that things broke down all the time…
I enjoyed being the judge in most games. That practice allowed me to speed up the process and maintain the fog of war.
Discretion being the better part of valor by the commander in some naval games is handled with a die roll. I wonder if any ruleset has used something like the Battle Rating approach of Battlegroup? The advantage of this is the incremental nature of the issues that cause one to draw another counter. Instead of sweating out a die roll at a certain trigger point, one knows that “doom” (or the need to withdraw) is approaching. That might cause a player to modify his behavior ahead of an “all or nothing” breakpoint.
*Some games have no such trigger and the battle rating approach helps end the game before nearly every combatant is smoking and wrecked. The counters being variable is less simplistic than simple morale points.
In my own rules, there is “pressure” (I wanted a name that alludes to steamships) which incrementally increases until it reaches a certain point at which the overall commander will break off the action and the game ends. It’s not my original invention, TooFatLardies use a similar mechanism under the name of “Force Morale”.