|
Post by Malchor on Dec 12, 2018 21:26:16 GMT -6
I won't be going down your rabbit hole. You know my thoughts on Reiswitz. I'm surprised someone else would choose to mention it again. They must have read your book. Reiswitz is pretty consistently (if not flat out consistently) credited as such, not just in PatW but by Perla, McHugh, Young, etc.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 12, 2018 23:48:20 GMT -6
I spy something with iron sides at the bottom. No secret there was a civil war campaign going on in the MMSA in the 1970s. I may even have shown some notes from it down in one of my posts. You really don't want to commit yourself do you. I try to keep an open mind; the alternative is dogmatic commitment to things that hold you back in the long run. But I do understand we're on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 13, 2018 4:55:53 GMT -6
I try to keep an open mind; the alternative is dogmatic commitment to things that hold you back in the long run. But I do understand we're on the same page. There is an alternative. Strongly opinions, loosely held. That said, having just side stepped a “what is an RPG” rat hole, I can see the value in side stepping to avoid the slippery slope that leads to said hole.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 13, 2018 5:03:03 GMT -6
I spy something with iron sides at the bottom. No secret there was a civil war campaign going on in the MMSA in the 1970s. I may even have shown some notes from it down in one of my posts. I was commenting on them for their bold appearance on the image, while also seeming to taunting us with their mysteries.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 14, 2018 22:04:40 GMT -6
I try to keep an open mind; the alternative is dogmatic commitment to things that hold you back in the long run. But I do understand we're on the same page. I get it. Seriously, I do. You're trying to tease things out in your own mind. And, because of what you do, you would be under much more scrutiny for the comments you make than some podunk, like myself, who is at liberty to say pretty much whatever he pleases. Reiswitz is pretty consistently (if not flat out consistently) credited as such, not just in PatW but by Perla, McHugh, Young, etc. Credited as what? My comment has nothing to do with him being considered the originator of war gaming. His influence on games that immediately followed him is sure. You may not be aware that his game wasn't translated from German to English until 1983. Jon likes to suggest a tangential influence of Reisswitz on Korns through the authors you mention above. I tend to see his influence coming through his short comings- which are also mentioned by those same authors- and therefore not of significance for Korns. I see a much clearer influence in Verdy. Hope that clears things up.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 15, 2018 19:49:06 GMT -6
Credited as what? My comment has nothing to do with him being considered the originator of war gaming. His influence on games that immediately followed him is sure. You may not be aware that his game wasn't translated from German to English until 1983. Jon likes to suggest a tangential influence of Reisswitz on Korns through the authors you mention above. I tend to see his influence coming through his short comings- which are also mentioned by those same authors- and therefore not of significance for Korns. I see a much clearer influence in Verdy. Hope that clears things up. Interesting, I picked up two books from interlibrary loans yesterday: Heroic Worlds by Lawrence Schick and War Games, Department of the Army 1952 also known as MS No. P-094. The latter authored by Rudolf Hofmann and translated by P. Luetzkenderf. Based on the 1966 rules, there is nothing in Korns about one player per figure, not naming soldiers or taking on the persona of the troop's commander. So why do people think it does? You indicated that it might have been included in the 1972 rules—I do not have a copy of those, so if they are in there, perhaps. There is another possibility though, which is that Mr. Schick got some details wrong and might be the source of this perception (unless Schick is echoing an earlier work). Here is what Schick said: Here is a corrected version: A similar approach was developed independently by Michael J. F. Korns, an Iowan Kansen gamer who in 1968 1966 published a set of World War II miniatures rules titled Modern War in Miniature. Korns also proposed a game referee and single miniature figures controlled by individual players small squads of troops controlled by each player. Now for War Games from the Department of the Army 1952. This is a report created by the Army based on information provided by former German officers, mainly General der Infanterie Rudolf Hofmann. What is interesting here is that there is a breakdown of various types of wargame activities which may be used, listed here as they appear in the book: 1. The War Game Proper, 2. Map exercises, 3. Staff exercises, 4. Training trip, 5. Tactical walk, 6. Command-post and social exercise, 7. Sand-table exercise. There is the text from the last: The concept of a referee (a director), Map exercises (which is also used in Korns), and otherwise blind players combined with the referee using a Sand-table for use with forces for a rifle squad sounds a lot like Korns. There are from titles in the bibliography of A Brief History of War Games 1956 includes some titles that may also be of interest, such as "War Games for small and large units. (Translated from the German) Typed, 1937" M 506-A7-D4.43 or perhaps "War Games on Sand Models. Army Quarterly, July 1926, p. 397." Now let's talk about Reisswitz Jr. Reisswitz was tasked with creating maps to run with his game, he was gain favor from above, and some people did not like it. Reisswitz was reassigned to some backwater, took it badly and is reported to have killed himself. People in command (sorry, not going to dig up names right now) tried to Reisswitz's game going, but it turns out the rules were not easy to follow, perhaps with a few bits missing, which required Reisswitz to make it work. So others tried to fix it by filling in the missing bits or bits that were not working right. And as is the way these things go, some people tried to "fix" it by adding more complexity. This resulted in a new and improved mess of complexity and that brought us to Verdy's Free Kriegspiel. A translation of Reisswitz's original text became moot for two reasons: 1. it was not really useful out of the box, 2. due to that former, the game became a living thing that evolved, a moving target. For those running wargame for the military, the latest and greatest became more important than the historical original.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 22:25:50 GMT -6
Straining at gnats, swallowing camels.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 16, 2018 13:05:39 GMT -6
Based on the 1966 rules, there is nothing in Korns about one player per figure, not naming soldiers or taking on the persona of the troop's commander. So why do people think it does? You indicated that it might have been included in the 1972 rules—I do not have a copy of those, so if they are in there, perhaps. There is another possibility though, which is that Mr. Schick got some details wrong and might be the source of this perception (unless Schick is echoing an earlier work). Here is what Schick said: Here is a corrected version: A similar approach was developed independently by Michael J. F. Korns, an Iowan Kansen gamer who in 1968 1966 published a set of World War II miniatures rules titled Modern War in Miniature. Korns also proposed a game referee and single miniature figures controlled by individual players small squads of troops controlled by each player. In the time since this thread started I've gotten a chance to look over the 1966 Korns. To me the most interesting (and frankly jaw-dropping) part is the example of play, "THE GAME: TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY". This is because the format - a dialogue between a player interacting with the world from the viewpoint of a single character and the referee/judge - is so strikingly similar to the Example of Play in OD&D Vol 3. (as derv pointed out earlier in this thread) The first part of the example with the German player seems like a one-on-one combat. The German exclusively refers to a single character as "I" and the other player's character as "the American" ("I'm picking up my sub-machine gun .... I want to keep looking for the American in the houses"). The Judge refers to the German's single player character as "You". This seems pretty close to what Schick is describing "single miniature figures controlled by individual players". So even if unintended, Korns' example itself gives a strong impression of individual players controlling single figures. In the second part of the example with the American player he refers to his own character ("I give the order to stop") and other soldiers under his command in the third person ("have the sergeant set the 30 caliber behind the log"). The seems similar to a PC controlling a group of henchmen/men-at-arms in D&D. There's still a focus on playing from the viewpoint of a single character at a time. Now it seems that each of these battles is only a portion of a single game, so the first person viewpoint focus is switching throughout the game from battle to battle? Or do you only play from the first-person viewpoint of the commander of your troops throughout the game? This isn't clear to me from the examples. Your revised description of the game as "small squads of troops controlled by each player" doesn't sit quite right with me because it omits the strong focus on playing from the first person viewpoint of a single character at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 16, 2018 18:09:01 GMT -6
In the time since this thread started I've gotten a chance to look over the 1966 Korns. To me the most interesting (and frankly jaw-dropping) part is the example of play, "THE GAME: TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY". This is because the format - a dialogue between a player interacting with the world from the viewpoint of a single character and the referee/judge - is so strikingly similar to the Example of Play in OD&D Vol 3. (as derv pointed out earlier in this thread) I get it, the dialog looks strikingly familiar to D&D. Heck, let's be honest, the Korns dialog is even more first person and from the perspective of the figure than the OD&D volume III example. But that is when read without the context of also reading the rules and other text in the book. For starters, directly after the example, Korns himself says, "The above is a not-too-exceptional conversation between a judge and two opposing players during a war game." With the context of the rest of the rules, Korns as a whole starts to look a bit different, at least to me. In fact, if you think about it, with the absence of the dialog from the book, with no other changes, there would likely be no debate about this. At the local war game club near my home, there was a WWII skirmish game played that I watched as they played on and off. I do not recall the rule set name, but there was a referee, he set up the ground situation with what looked like dungeon tiles, they had pained minis, they used bases like the LITKO horde trays (I think 4 figures per tray) which allowed them to move groups or individuals, they diced. But once the referee finished the initial setup and gave out the initial situation, they played it like a wargame. "I'm moving this guy here to toss a grenade at those guys," dice roll, "oomph," moves the figure and rolls again, "Ref: where are you tossing the grenade?" "that way over there." If they were inclined to, I can see them playing the exact same game with the exact same rolls and moves, but using the dialog as shown in Korns. Just like I can see someone playing Korns rules exactly as they did. If you asked those guys they would all say they were playing a skirmish game, a wargame. That same day, I played Cuba Libre, a COIN game (COunterINsurgencies) from GMT Games. One player in my D&D group at the club (I'm now a regular for their D&D games), another was Vincent Tsao (one of the designers of Junta). While Cuba Libre is a board game, our dialog mostly first person as we took on various roles. Vincent was the 26 July Movement, but talked about his moves as if he was Castro; I was the Government, but talk about by moved as if Batista, another player was the Syndicate and played up a mod role when talking about his moves; the player who was playing the student group did not take on a role, but still spoke in the first person. When we tried to make deals with each other, we also did it in the first person and mostly in role. Same thing for when people invariably came over to see what was going on or for an update on our progress. If we wrote our dialog it might not be that different than Korns. So with that perspective from both of the above, plus spending way too much time reading military reports on wargaming, I'm giving the dialog from Korns less weight than others. Now if you disagree with me, that's cool. This is subjective in nature, so we will just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 16, 2018 19:45:20 GMT -6
Maybe people could indulge me by reading Korns example of play as he suggests- " a not-too-exceptional conversation between a judge and two opposing players during a war game."
In other words, this is the dialogue that is occurring between the judge and the two players over several simultaneous turns. The conversation differs because the players observations and interactions are different over the same period of time.
Consider, if this is true, what "role" the Judge is playing besides interpreting of orders and applying rules of adjudicating movement, weapon range and lethality. The judge would be taking on the role of both ally and enemy soldiers.
In my opinion of how MWiM is written, what may lead to some second guessing is that Korns is possibly spreading his net wider than what he or anyone else realistically played the game. The game lends itself to small unit actions because anything else would take too long to complete a game and the players would likely get bored (this is one reason why I suggest people actually play it). He offers all the tools for different types of actions- artillery, aerial, infantry, armored vehicles. These elements can be used. But, I think there inclusion and some of the things that are alluded to are Korns attempt at presenting his game in the context of an ongoing campaign. If you were to play it as a campaign, the game would require more than one judge- which he also alludes to but does not really go into any detail about.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 16, 2018 20:22:45 GMT -6
Maybe people could indulge me by reading Korns example of play as he suggests- " a not-too-exceptional conversation between a judge and two opposing players during a war game." Just for kicks, here is an example from Sayre, Map Maneuvers and Tactical Rides, 1908, The Army Service Schools Press, Fort Leavenworth, Kanas (the place with the library that Korns specifically calls out in his Acknowledgments at the back of his book, so Korns almost certainly had access to this book), page 116: Is that so different than Korns? I choose to take Korns at his word. You don't. Looks like an impasse. I'm tapping out. One side note. Sayre says on page 85: I wonder what Sayre would say about, "What do you want to do?"
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 16, 2018 21:13:38 GMT -6
Is that so different than Korns? I think there are some excellent parallels to Sayre. What tradition do you think Sayre comes from? Rigid Kriegsspiel? I find it considerably rude to continue to post questions and comments directed at me without first answering my questions. You have done this several times now.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 17, 2018 0:29:58 GMT -6
The scan of Korns 1966 that I found on-line is missing page 12 - it was blank in the scanner's copy. Does anyone have the text of this page?
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 17, 2018 8:41:31 GMT -6
The scan of Korns 1966 that I found on-line is missing page 12 - it was blank in the scanner's copy. Does anyone have the text of this page? I think we are all working from the same copy. I have not been able to track down a copy in a library collection www.worldcat.org/oclc/641318797
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 17, 2018 15:15:25 GMT -6
I find it considerably rude to continue to post questions and comments directed at me without first answering my questions. You have done this several times now What are you talking about? Your questions have been addressed. At times with an investment in time to write a reply. You may not agree with the reply, but that does not mean it didn’t happen. I think there are some excellent parallels to Sayre. What tradition do you think Sayre comes from? Rigid Kriegsspiel? Read Sayre, it is available. Chapter 1 should contain what you are looking for: books.google.com/books?id=I6wtAAAAIAAJ&dq=Sayre%20map&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=Sayre%20map&f=falseI don't think "tradition" is the right word, nor are Rigid and Free Kriegsspiel mutually exclusive. You can do map maneuvers in Free Kriegsspiel and then when troops come into range switch to Rigid. Sayre also sited, through quotes of Major Raymonds that even writers of Free Kriegsspiel rules occasionally admitted that rules and tables can be useful, and writers of Rigid Kriegsspiel rules state that the tables in rules in their games are advisory in nature (the OG guidelines over rules) and goes on to say, "The discintion between the two systems is, indeed, largely one of degrees." All of that said, Sayre's map maneuvers are mostly about just that map maneuvers and not so much combat. And with that Sayre takes a Free Kriegsspiel approach, he also seems to dispense with double-blind and allows the players to look at the large map with the director. Of course, with the advent of computers, Rigid Kriegsspiel comes back, plus Korns is a form of Rigid Kriegsspiel with its double-blind players, dice, and tables.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 17, 2018 21:12:23 GMT -6
Here is another example of dialog from The Regimental War Game, by Major Immanuel (translated 1907 by Walter Krueger):
The Tactical War Game, Verdy
PatW as examples as well.
This is why I take Korns at his word that his dialog example is not so unusual.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 17, 2018 22:35:58 GMT -6
I get it, the dialog looks strikingly familiar to D&D. Heck, let's be honest, the Korns dialog is even more first person and from the perspective of the figure than the OD&D volume III example. But that is when read without the context of also reading the rules and other text in the book. For starters, directly after the example, Korns himself says, "The above is a not-too-exceptional conversation between a judge and two opposing players during a war game." With the context of the rest of the rules, Korns as a whole starts to look a bit different, at least to me. In fact, if you think about it, with the absence of the dialog from the book, with no other changes, there would likely be no debate about this. At the local war game club near my home, there was a WWII skirmish game played that I watched as they played on and off. I do not recall the rule set name, but there was a referee, he set up the ground situation with what looked like dungeon tiles, they had pained minis, they used bases like the LITKO horde trays (I think 4 figures per tray) which allowed them to move groups or individuals, they diced. But once the referee finished the initial setup and gave out the initial situation, they played it like a wargame. "I'm moving this guy here to toss a grenade at those guys," dice roll, "oomph," moves the figure and rolls again, "Ref: where are you tossing the grenade?" "that way over there." If they were inclined to, I can see them playing the exact same game with the exact same rolls and moves, but using the dialog as shown in Korns. Just like I can see someone playing Korns rules exactly as they did. If you asked those guys they would all say they were playing a skirmish game, a wargame. That same day, I played Cuba Libre, a COIN game (COunterINsurgencies) from GMT Games. One player in my D&D group at the club (I'm now a regular for their D&D games), another was Vincent Tsao (one of the designers of Junta). While Cuba Libre is a board game, our dialog mostly first person as we took on various roles. Vincent was the 26 July Movement, but talked about his moves as if he was Castro; I was the Government, but talk about by moved as if Batista, another player was the Syndicate and played up a mod role when talking about his moves; the player who was playing the student group did not take on a role, but still spoke in the first person. When we tried to make deals with each other, we also did it in the first person and mostly in role. Same thing for when people invariably came over to see what was going on or for an update on our progress. If we wrote our dialog it might not be that different than Korns. So with that perspective from both of the above, plus spending way too much time reading military reports on wargaming, I'm giving the dialog from Korns less weight than others. I see your point, but to me Korns' examples are the most important part of how he envisions his game will actually look in play (similar to how the example in OD&D Vol 3 is the only portion that actually shows you how D&D looks in play). Korns' first example is clearly one-on-one combat from the first person viewpoint of a single soldier. It makes a big impression when reading the rules for the first time. Furthermore, in Korns' game the dialog is the entire game to the player(other than a map that can be marked with what their troop(s) have seen on). That's one difference I note from your examples here: in those games the dialog is based on top-down observation of a game being played out with pieces on a board, whereas game play in Korns is theatre-of-the-mind for the players (only the Judge has access to the actual "board"), as derv has pointed out previously. Korns: "[t]he players are not allowed to see what is going on in the sand table". The Sayre example you give above does feel like it could come from a D&D game, but is missing the immediacy of Korns' first example. I think it's a combination of the theatre-of-mind dialog and that the judge is resolving the action in two second rounds.
|
|
|
Post by mattconfusion on Apr 25, 2019 3:23:03 GMT -6
Sorry to resurrect a 6 months old thread but I've ben looking intorno MWIM and I would be interested in derv's Colonel Of Korns, but all the links to his dropbox are expired, does anybody has the material?
|
|