Question: Is Memoir '44 a simulation?

(As heard in The Dice Tower, Episode 25)

Joe's top ten choices

Tom's top ten choices

Name	Entry
Alex Grant	Pseudo-mathematical proofs why Memoir ’44 is a Simulation. Proof #1 Axiom 1: Memoir ’44 is “GAMES Magazine Best Historical Simulation 2005” Memoir ’44 = “GAMES Magazine Best Historical Simulation 2005” (by Axiom 1) Memoir ’44 “Historical Simulation” Memoir ’44 “Simulation” Proof #2 Axiom 2: A dictionary definition for a word contains many definitions; in order to prove an object matches the dictionary definition it is only necessary to prove it matches one of the definitions. Axiom 3: “mimic verb … 3. (of things) to be an imitation of; simulate” (from my dictionary) Axiom 4: Part of the definition of Memoir ’44 from www.funagain.com: “Each battle scenario mimics the historical terrain, troop placements and objectives of each army.” Memoir ’44 contains battle scenarios. “Each battle scenario mimics the historical terrain, troop placements and objectives of each army.” (by Axiom 4) Memoir ’44 mimics historical terrain, troop placements and objectives of each army. Memoir ’44 mimics Memoir ’44 simulates (by Axioms 2 & 3) Memoir ’44 “Simulation”
Andrew Mellors	Basically in my mind the main thing that makes a game a simulation is that the game has some physical model in the real world.  So this shuts out Settlers and Arkham Horror.  But it also lets Power Grid, Ticket to Ride, and Puerto Rico into the mix.  I think that if the game is portraying something that either actually or possibly could happen in the real world then it's a simulation.
Andy Foulke	I've never played Memoir 44, but I believe it is a simulation. I think pretty much every game out there is a simulation of human nature, of man's desire to conquer, dominate and rise above his fellow men. That's probably not the answer you're looking for.  Let me try again. I don't think Memoir 44 is a simulation, because it abandons historical accuracy for the sake of game play.  There's no utility in playing Memoir for the purpose of "what-if" analysis, training in WW2 strategy/tactics, or history education. OK let me try to appease Tom this time. I think Memoir 44 is a simulation, just not as accurate as some of the grognardish games.  It immerses the players in a WW2 theme and reminds them of the events that happened in WW2.
Anson Li	There is no answer for the following: "Is Memoir 44' a simulation or not?" because fundamentally, it is equivalent to Hamlet's "To be or not to be." Tom's view of a simulation (based on my interpretation) is that any game with the theme of war can be placed on a spectrum from light->heavy simulation.  It just depends on how much detail the game has.  Since Memoir 44 is about war, and it involves the placing and moving of units to 'simulate' a past battle, it is a simulation game to Tom. Joe's view of Memoir 44' (again, based on my interpretation..hehe) is that it does not fit his criteria for a simulation.  He has certain criteria for any game which has to be fulfilled before he'd categorize it as a simulation. In my opinion, Memoir 44' feels like a simulation, but not a realistic one.  Do I care?  No.  I just care of the game is interesting to play.
Anthony Anderson	My apologies Joe.  I consider my self a wargamer at heart, but... I believe that Memoir '44 is a simulation.  As I remember from college, a simulation was a mathematical model developed to represent something.  This model had controlling variables that were used to effect behavior and therefore determine outcome.  The game Memoir '44 is a simulation of battlefield situations with the variables of cards drawn and played, diced rolled, and actions taken which are determined by the cards. The number of cards, dice rolls, and the order of play and movement are all finite and contribute to the deterministic outcome of the game.  Get bad cards, roll badly, and make bad decisions and you lose.  Get good cards, roll well, and make good decisions and you will win.  Fortunately it's the permutations and combinations in between that makes it fun and interesting or proves it's broken. Perhaps the better question would be is Memoir '44 a good simulation?  There I say no.
Ben Harris	Memoir 44 is a simulation because...I mean Memoir 44 is not a simulation because... My initial thought is that it is a simulation because Joe doesn't think it is...but upon further thought I think it is really an unanswerable question (how is that for wishy-washy?). The game simulates ("assumes the mere appearance of") many parts of World War 2, including the battles, terrain, troops, weaponry, etc.  In fact whenever I watch a WW2 movie I enjoy looking through my M44 scenarios too see how accurate the maps and facts are, and they seem to hit pretty close. My last thought on the other side of the coin is this, it is a game, so it's appearance (simulation) will change depending on the players, their experience, and die roll in this case.  If I play a scenario map in M44 in which in real life the Germans demolished the Allied troops and suffered very little loss and yet during the game the opposite happens, is that rightfully a simulation?  My limited knowledge would say no. Thanks for listening to the babble, in conclusion I stand firmly on the fence!
Ben Kindt	I consider Memoir ’44 to be a good operational-level simulation of small unit actions on the World War 2 western front.  First, Memoir ’44’s scenarios effectively place opposing players within the historical context of each battle.  Each player is provided with background on events leading up to the battle at hand and provide armchair commanders with the forces and objectives representative of those which actually participated in the battle.  The terrain, objectives, and obstacles on the map all combine to produce a flavor represantative of the historical surroundings from the battle.  Furthermore, in the Overlord Game of Memoir ’44 the game simulates the compounding difficulties of limited resources, communication breakdowns, and competing challenges of implementing a multi-front strategy.  While many criticize Memoir ’44 for having only generic types of units, for most scenarios, I consider each tank unit, infantry soldier, or artillery piece to actually represent a battalion-level grouping. At this level, one need not be so concerned with the specific performance levels of each type of tank, squad, or gun.  Overall, I consider Memoir ’44 a very effective game in simulating for players the challenges World War 2 commanders had on the battlefield with forces, geography, and command difficulties representative of actual historical conditions.
Bill Place	I'm curious as to what you two would consider a simulation? For me the game must force the players to use a-historical tactics to accomplish their goals to be called a simulation... simple and to the point. Tell Tom sorry...
Bob Klindworth	The question of whether a certain game is a "simulation" or "just a game" is one that is often asked, so it makes sense to consider how each is defined. I think the two beasts are mainly distinguished by their purposes. The purpose of a game is to entertain, while the purpose of a simulation is to teach. Specifically, a simulation should teach lessons on the proper use of strategy, tactics, or the operational art to aspiring commanders. While it is possible to be entertained while one is being taught, a simulation will not compromise its lesson to increase its entertainment value. So what are the main features of a simulation? A simulation should present the player with the same sorts of command decisions and problems that a real commander would make or experience. The level of detail in the game should be exactly enough to cast the player into this role, and no more. If the level of detail is too low, then the player will not face the same problems that a real commander might. If the level of detail is too high, than the player will have to "wear more hats" than his/her historical counterpart did. Such a simulation loses focus, distracting players from the learning that is the purpose of the simulation. Most of the wargames that I own and enjoy do not fit this criteria. That does not diminish my enjoyment of them, nor does it mean that I can learn nothing from them. It simply means that they are not really appropriate as training tools for budding commanders. I am skeptical of whether "Memoir '44" would be a simulation under these criteria. However, this does not detract from its purpose; by all accounts it is a very entertaining game.
Brian Newman	I'd propose that Memoir '44 is indeed a simulation game -- to a degree. Sure, Memoir '44 doesn't accurately simulate the movements of artillery support units behind tank formations, or the infantry masses overrunning cities and trenches and hedgerows. But it does simulate a small team of well-heeled and well-dug-in snipers using covering fire to hold down (and even pick off) a much larger force.  That's something that even Squad Leader has trouble simulating. It also simulates routing an enemy through its retreat rules, which Squad Leader does support (somewhat) but a lot of "simulation" games just gloss over, because some feel that it robs the player of the tactical decisions for his forces. It also very well simulates the concept that, while a general may be able to make the best plans and give the best orders possible, the units out in the field may not receive the whole orders, they may not receive them at all if their radio is out, a middle-management officer may re-interpret them or not even pass them on, a squad may break or just sit there rather than carry out the orders, or the general could just be incompetent in the first place!  How many simulation wargames allow you to be that incompetent? :)  But in all seriousness, how many simulate the vagaries of WWII radio communications so well?  Memoir '44 is the only one I can think of.
Chad Bagaason	I would say that Memoir '44 is a simulation, it just happens to be a fairly simple one.  It is also more of a simulation of war/conflict than one of WWII specifically (as the system works well for the American civil war, ala Battle Cry.) This plays in my favor, as the simulation is simple enough to play this game with my wife, but complex enough that I don't get bored with it. (Unlike ASL, which I really enjoy, but she cannot play.  I'd be willing to bet that most people would call ASL "more of a simulation" than Memior '44, but I don't know if I could agree - both games simulte WWII combat, just in different ways. A game either simulates something or it doesn't.)
Chris Blum	While potentially a fun, enjoyable game, Memoir '44 is NOT a simulation. It is a game that uses the theme of World War 2 battles to let players hopefully experience a fun time. If theme alone where enough to be a simulation then Arkham Horror would accurately depict the historical attack upon a New England Town from Evil Space Creatures (trademarked), and Shear Panic would simulate the trials and tribulations of life of a flock of sheep. To attempt to be a simulation, whether it is accurate or not, a game must have a central purpoise to accurately recreate the battle(s) of the game. This would include such notions as differences in weaponry, training, tactics, and leadership. Memoir does none of this. Essentially the game of risk has been updated with a better theme and terrain. Perhaps this is just a slight update of the old grognard argument of playability vs. reality.  Simulation vs. game. Where does one end and the other begin? I think we now know - Memoir '44.
Chris Reuber	Top Ten reasons why Memoir ’44 should probably not be considered a simulation. 10.  The structure is essentially Toulouse. 9.  There just seems to be something Vichy about it. 8.  It’s incomplete without a Pair-e. 7.  Simulations typically have combat charts and dice with numbers. 6.  Simulations have counters instead of little plastic figures. 5.  There is no known option to improve the German tanks or the American artillery. 4.  There is no Private Ryan – unless he’s the guy mentioned on the back page bibliography. 3.  There is no Eisenhower and more importantly Steven Spielberg in the director’s chair. 2.  The two back boards together are … how should I say … a real beach, making just one – a son of a beach. 1.  The head of the company is French, and then he comes to America to sell a 2-game Overlord scenario for twice the price where he says that the Germans win 75% of the time.  “Nous voici, Lafayette! - Lafayette, we are here -- spending money at the game store!?”
Cody Sandifur	As background, I own and enjoy some lighter Avalon Hill wargames such as Victory in the Pacific and War at Sea.  I consider both Battle Cry and Memoir 44 to be fun, luck-driven games.  I would probably enjoy longer, in-depth wargames such as ASL, but I have neither the free time nor the years of life available to dedicate my middle-aged mind to these hulking monsters. Instead, I usually play short, high-fun games (for me) such as Amun Re, Arena Maximus, New England, Nexus Ops, and Survive! In my opinion, no game that is meant to represent an actual battle can, strictly speaking, be considered a simulation.  This is simply due to the fact that, for a ³game² to accurately simulate a real-life battle from history, there should be no choices to make.  And hence, no game.  The same units/soldiers that died in the original battle should also die in the simulated battle, troop movements would be identical to the ³simulated² troops, etc.  Fun, eh? Even if we relax our definition of ³simulation² a wee bit, nearly all wargames fail to simulate the hunger, fear, and exhaustion of the average soldier.  And at larger scales, there is a complete disconnect between the removal of a cardboard counter from the gameboard (or plastic figure, in the case of M44) and the loss of life.  An armchair general typically won¹t blink as he offers up a particular unit for annihilation for the sake of winning a battle, whereas the real-life general may let this aspect of battle seep into his thinking and affect his decisions.  But who knows?  I¹m no general, certainly.  Also, as others have argued, Fog of War is perhaps the single most critical aspect of ³real² warfare.  In this respect, M44 and many other games fail to portray battle realistically.  But if we can get past these issues, there is still a certain degree of simulation in many wargames -- perhaps even in this ³pop² WW2 game that has sold jillions of copies. Ignoring the above issues, my own limited understand of ³simulation wargames² is that these games (1) require that the initial placements of troops correspond roughly with the initial placements of the originals, (2) the basic characteristics of the simulated units (armor, speed, etc.) and terrain somehow correspond to the basic characteristics of the originals, and (3) once the game begins, the players are relatively free to do what they wish with their units/soldiers. I think that M44 clearly satisfies the first and third criteria.  But what of the second?  Is the relative power of tank to infantry in M44 accurate? Are the relative speeds realistic? Are the relative terrain effects of buildings vs. sand valid?  Tanks move faster than infantry in the game, which I strongly suspect is a good thing; on the other hand, tank squadrons that experience losses still get to roll the full amount of attack dice, which is weird.  But fine, whatever.  Using a very light definition of ³simulation², however, irrefutable statements about M44 include: (a) tanks are stronger and move faster than infantry, (b) sand slows units down, (c) artillery shoots really far, etc. etc.  So in an extremely vague sense, M44 simulates reality, to be sure. So, my final answer. Is M44 an accurate simulation? Oh, I don¹t know.  It¹s fun and quick, and that¹s all that I really care about. And, to me, it is a "simulation² in the most generous sense of the word, and that¹s good enough for my enjoyment purposes.  (So there!)
Dave Shapiro	The question of whether Memoir 44 is a simulation or not actually generated quite a bit of discussion. What I found unusual is that ‘the war gamer’ in our group is the one that most strongly defended the game as a simulation.  I however, disagree.        A ‘simulation’ is a subset of a particular genre that, in my opinion, should attempt to promote the same types of problems and decisions that confronted the participants in the actual event. ( A simulation need not be a war game; for example, there are a tremendous number of stock market simulators available. )The ‘games’ that the military employs in order to simulate specific battles or possible scenarios are extremely detailed (and dull). For any game to be considered a simulation, it must include all of the relevant factors; those elements that were/are critical to the battle or event that is to be simulated.        Very often, past attempts at simulating battles have resulted in games that were terribly lop sided. For example, SPI published a game of the Arab/Israeli Seven Days War. The Arab player won by having ANY pieces remaining on the board after a specified number of turns. (Though I had played it on several occasions, I have never seen a single Arab win.) This is common among simulations and this ‘debate’ is not new to Memoir 44.  Wargamers have been arguing the merits of historicity versus playability since I was first introduced to these types of games in the 70’s.        There appears to be a distinct trade-off between the amount of historical accuracy and the playability of the game. The more accurate the simulation, the less the player controls; the simulation forces certain paths or decision trees. For example: there are many civil war games that require that the Stonewall Jackson unit be removed on a given turn to represent his actual demise. This may be historical but it doesn’t make for good game play.        Memoir 44 has a simplified system that allows players to make decisions relating to a particular situation without the layers of complexity required to simulate the battle. Compare Memoir 44 “Overlord” scenario with Avalon Hill’s “The Longest Day” (not considered by war gamers to be very complex). The problems and decisions are exponentially greater in the latter game and better represent the situation. Supply logistics are completely absent from Overlord; there is no consideration given to morale, chain of command, etc. (as well as many other critical factors if this is to be a simulation.)        This does not mean that Mem 44 is a bad game; it simply means it is not a simulation.  It has been my experience that most games promoted as simulations are not very entertaining (though they may be challenging). Why try to make the game something that it is not?
Dave Stanaway	I have been reading a bit about M44, and it looks like a game that might work out for me for playing against younger people, or people with shorter attention spans, and not much attention to tactics. Then I can hook them over to ASLSK if they show promise of having a deeper perception of S&T. Since I have never seen the game, I will take the option of describing a Simulation as it relates to games. All wargames, by definintion have a war theme, and at some level attempt to simulate war, so all war games are simulations. This is not very useful to most gamers. What is more useful is knowing if it is a GOOD simulation, and how much freedom of decision you have on key stages of the game. One extreme would be a game that gives you almost no decisions, or where the right decision is fairly clear at each point, and it accurately reflects a historical event. The best example of something like this I can think of are the choose your own adventure type books for kids. This might be a good simulation, but it probably would not be a good game. Another extreme would be one where you have lots of decisions, but there is no luck, and it is possible to reflect a historical set of events within the game, but you can take a different path if you desire. An example of this would be Diplomacy. This might be a good simulation considering its low complexity, but for some, it can be not such a good game as it can be very deterministic, and is probably not very much fun if you are playing someone that knows the proven strategies in the game very well. In my opinion, the best simulation is one that lets you recreate what happened in a historical situation, but also create alternate results that are plausable. This should do so with the minimum complexity possible. One quote I heard recently about the game Fire in the Sky when compared to a monster game known to be a good historical simulation was: "10% of the playing time, and 90% of the history" this tells me that the design for this game, at least in that persons opionion simulates the historical reality with 90% of the accuracy of a much more complex simulation, but bottles it up into a simpler set of rules with a much shorter playing time. It sounds like a great game, and I need to get down and play it. Play by email anyone? One last point on simulations. A good simulation should give you a good feel for the decisions that would have been made in the real thing. In a tactical simulation, some of the manuvers that worked in real combat, should work in a similar way in the game. EG, in ASL, it is a good tactic to put an MG nest in a dominating position that covers open ground that the enemy will need to cross. Try making a last turn dash that is going to go straight up a road where the enemy can lay a fire lane, and you have come across a new definition of pain! In arial combat, it is a good tactic to approach your target out of the sun, as your target is blinded (Iron Maiden song.  "10 ME109s out of the sun"...). A good dogfight simulation would take such real tactics into account, and make them a good tactic in the game.
David Mitchell	Memoir 44 is a simulation because the mechanics and game play would not work in any other setting.
Derek Jung	To answer whether M44 is a sim or not, I took a look at the rules. Here's what an M44 turn looks like, as enacted by our two players, whom we shall call, err...Tom and Joe. Tom:  Whose turn is it? Joe:  Whose turn is it every time you ask? Tom:  Oh.  Right.  I'll play...this Command Card.  Armor Assault! Joe:  Oooh...I'm shaking. Tom:  Shaddup.  Okay.  I'll order these two over here, and this one here, and....this one. Joe:  You're not moving that one over there? Tom:  Rats...forgot about that one.  Oh well.  Okay, this one goes here....this one here...this one -- Joe:  Wait, you moved 4 spaces. Tom:  Oops, miscounted.  There.  And this one here.  Now to attack!      This unit fires on your infantry.  [Rolls dice.]  Rats.  Okay, this one also fires on your infantry.  [Rolls dice.]  Aw man... Joe:  Boy, you suck. And so on.  And now, what if M44 were a sim.... Tom:  Whose turn is it? Oh, sorry. I'll play this Armor Assault card. Joe:  Okay, but remember: the weather conditions reduce your movement capability by one hex. Tom:  Fine.  I'll move this unit. Joe:  Roll for morale. Tom:  Huh? Joe:  That unit has a low morale stat.  They might not follow your orders. Tom:  Okay, fine.  [Rolls dice.]  Ummm, now what? Joe:  [Consults table.]  The roll failed.  That unit won't move. Tom:  Argh.  Okay.  I'll move this one.  (Tom finishes moving what units he can.)  Now to attack! Joe:  Did you reload your units at the end of the last turn? Tom:  Yes....You burned me on two turns ago, remember? Joe:  Heh heh, just checking. Tom:  Okay.  This unit fires on your infantry unit there. Joe:  Can't.  It's out of range. Tom:  Why?  That unit of yours hit me from the same number of hexes away! Joe:  Yeah, but mine was a Pershing.  See?  It can hit from a range of 7.  Yours is a PzKpfw III.  It only has a range of 5. Tom:  I hate wargames. So to sum up:  While Memoir '44 has a historical and geographical context due to its scenarios, it seems to lack any differentiation between units -- differentiations which existed in the real battles, and differentiations (that's a long word to type over and over again) which made a difference, I'm sure, to the strategies and tactics of both sides.  So while I usually tend to agree with Tom on most gaming matters, I will have to side with Joe on this one: Memoir '44 is not a sim.  But it looks like a darned good game. :)
Donald Schoemaker	I think M'44 started out as a game, not a simulation.  In its raw out of the box form there is just too much "luck" involved with the combination of the cards you draw and the dice you roll.  On the whole I almost always think of true simulations requiring significantly less "luck factor".  In fact, I'd really lean toward an attrition game if I was looking for a true hard-core simulation. But is that what I was looking for in M'44?  On Saturday I  lost two games to my 12 year old son.  Did he "outwit" me wth superior tactics? Since he's not a big wargammer (yet!) he doesn't understand anything but attack, attack, attack.  That's what this game is about. In reality there are times when a leader's best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.  Or at least set your opponent up for an overwhelming flank attack with numerous units. It's also a bit of a problem when my strength four unit faces his strength one unit and I don't manage to inflict any wounds over three rounds due to lack of cards or bad dice rolls, but his unit proceeds to wipe me out while I wait for the "right card".  Realistic in the sense of a simulation?  I don't think so. That all being said, I watched a game played with the new rules and all the expansions at the LGS (I almost bought them but then I thought of your contest)and think the new rules make the game MORE of a simulation.  They at least add additional tactics and factors which MAY stretch it into a very basic simulation. In the long run though... does it matter?  I strongly view M'44 as a entry level wargame which I'm using to teach my son the basics of tactics and wargame play.  I have plenty of other great games, Hammer of the Scots, Europe Engulfed and yes, even ASL sitting on the bookcase just waiting for him to get old enough to play them.  In the meantime M'44 acts as a great "buffer" game and lets him brag about blowing me up!  And, dad is darn proud to have him as "Top General!"
Eli Hams	Memoir '44, although it includes both historic scenarios and the fantastic pseudo-wargaming "see how well you do versus how well it actually went" mechanic, is not a simulation for one simple reason: it is card-driven. No simulation would put me, as all-powerful orchestrator, in the situation where I am unable to issue commands to my troops on a key front of the battle. In no simulation would it be possible (albeit improbable) for me to command only (for example) the soldier on my left flank; in Memoir '44, this is very possible, although admittedly quite improbable. Quite often in the game, however, the player is forced to leave some of his soldiers sitting in a venerable position simply because he doesn't have the necessary cards to move them. Again, although the game includes wonderful, historically accurate scenarios, the occasional inability of the player to execute the tactically preferable action simply because he is lacking the necessary card makes it impossible for the game to be considered a simulation.
Eric Battle	Ok, so I sat down to write up this easy question about whether Memoir 44 is a simulation.  Of course it is, I thought and knew exactly how I’d write it.  But, as I set to actually writing it, I’ve completely changed my mind on my answer. M44 is a combat based game, that is true.  However, when I think about a simulation, I have to admit, that it really does nothing to particularly simulate the conflict of WWII.  The fact that it is basically the same game as Battlecry (the Civil War version as you know) makes it seem even more generic.  When I think of a simulation, I think of morale, of differences of troop expertise and training, of the importance of commanders on the battlefield and the difference between technologies (tanks later on in the war, etc).  In M44, the only difference between the two sides is shown by the cards and how many you can hold and also the setup of the scenario. So, no, I do not think it is a simulation of WWII, based on the generic nature of the game.  Is it fun?  Oh yes!
Eric Burgess	As for the question at hand - the 'simulation question', I'm afraid Joe is on very shaky ground with his argument - not because his thoughts aren't sensible but because the definition of this word is very open. Joe is assuming that the level of detail and accuracy of the game/action/whatever is somehow involved in the definition of the word. The term, as explained in Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia and anywhere else you care to look puts very simple requirements on what goes on to create a 'simulation.' Frankly, if my son and I were to play Battle of the Bulge in our play room with sticks as guns - guess what? We're involved in a 'simulation'! A sample definition: "A simulation is an imitation of some real device or state of affairs. Simulation attempts to represent certain features of the behavior of a physical or abstract system by the behavior of another system." I think the term "certain" (and something similar is in every other definition I could find) is pretty compelling and says that being a simulation has nothing to do with how good a simulation we are talking about. Memoir '44 may not be a very accurate 'simulation' by Joe's reckoning (and he's pretty much right!) but it is a 'simulation' nonetheless. So is Monopoly and every other themed game out there, regardless of the thin, pasted-on feel some have. The term is too open for Joe's restrictive perception of it. While I think Joe's argument may be more satisfying to a hardcore wargamer wanting to deride light euro-leaning wargames for their lack of real history, you cannot use your own connotations to bend a definition like that. Better to say, I think, that the wargames that Joe likes are an activity done for the fun of learning about history and thinking about the choices famous leaders made (and, perhaps, seeing if you can do better), while games Tom favors are more about having a good time in a nicely themed and interesting context where winning the game matters more than delving into the historical possibilities. Hope that's not too long. Thanks again for the great podcast!
Eric Forsyth	On the question of simulation, allow me to get a little philosophical.  In life, we know that there is rarely only black and white, but many shades of gray.  In places where it is very cold, the people have multiple words for "snow" as in Asia they have many words for "rice".  In this way, people that are more exposed to these elements have a keener sense to differentiate between different snow, different rice, etc. I have just listened to your episode 9 again and heard the passion of both of you defending your views.  Maybe, in the case of Joe, he sees the clear difference in his "rice", namely, historical wargames as simulations.  What harm is there for him to say Memoir '44 isn't? The game is a good game and people enjoy it for what it is.  The designer set out to make a simpler, more accessible game and he did that.  Is it a simulation?  Is what I am eating rice?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it sure tastes good!
Eric Osiowy	I think that a really good simulation game takes into account almost every detail of the conflict and translates these details into really great mechaniques that makes the game fun but also accurate to history. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the game should play exactly the same way every time but that the game should still be enjoyable to everyone playing. For example, in Axis & Allies all of the countries play almost the same way every time. Germany always has to attack Russia and the U.K. or else they will get crushed. In a really good simulation you get the feeling that your actions could have changed the course of history. In Breakout: Normandy depending on how you use your men you could not be able to break the German line or the weather could turn really bad and hamper the Allies efforts. In a really good simulation no matter the outcome, you should come away for the game feeling as if it could have actually happened in real life.
Garrett Herdter	Memoir ’44 is a GREAT simulation game!  I love the pink bunnies and the giant monkey that eats them.  There is nothing like a game that involves standing on your head while opponents throw dill pickles at you.  This is the best simulation game to come since that other one that made people over 31 go mentally crazy after eating small stones!  I am excited that they added expansions (which I do not have) that will allow less players to play if they weigh over 182 pounds!  That would be 182 pounds each, not combined! Memoir ’44-The game of true simulation!
Gary Christiansen	Strictly speaking, by dictionary definitions, Memoir 44 is a simulation... an "imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing." So technically you are SOOOO wrong Joe. So yeah yeah yeah, imitation... right? Technically... so you can still whomp Tom with the ugly stick anyway. Most wargamers mean the term 'Simulation' in a context of relative approximation to duplicating real world experience, just as the military would view the term in context of trying to provide detailed training. The US Military uses all kinds of simulation models to train for combat that are very near real world experience including the Army's OpForce Exercises, the Navy's Top Gun training, and a variety of survival schools which put individuals through intense real world experiences, in principle without risking real lives. Obviously by the most extreme definition of simulation duplicating real life experience, nothing can be a perfect simulation. So we get varying thresholds of approximations of reality viewed as 'Simulation' by degrees. The more abstractions, the farther from the approximation of reality. The more the abstraction works like a real world event, the more acceptable it can become. So it's reasonable to accept dice for combat results because it approximates uncertainty experienced during a combat event. Obviously, little plastic figures in Memoir 44 aren't going to bleed and leave behind families; thankfully, since my son has been killing them at an alarming rate. Memoir 44 is a lousy simulation at approximating reality, but shouldn't you expect that of Memoir 44? It's simple for fun's sake. Memoir 44 gives a suspension of disbelief for playing a tactical game, but the abstractions; identical movement, near identical effectiveness of different types of armor, identical artillery, absence of realistic historic orders of battle, card activation system, IgoUgo turn mechanism, regulated 'card' effects, and uniform casualty effects... those are unrealistic abstractions. Memoir 44 players can wipe out the entire opposing force without ever suffering any loss in any 'scenario'. That's not particularly realistic. The uniformity starts to take the game further from simulation almost to the point of being just a cool abstract game with a military theme grafted on it; so it's a poor simulation yet still a fun game. Battlecry, the logical kin of Memoir 44 was a carefully dumbed down miniatures game to fit on a board. That's right, a card driven board game instead of a miniatures tactical game. Yep, it's strictly speaking a simulation. If it were a bit weaker as a simulation though, it could just be a dicing competition. It is a fun game though.
George Kinney	Yes, of course it is. It uses proxy pieces (the soldiers/tanks/artillery/board/etc), and a set of rules designed to approximate ground combat. Its functionally little different from the tabletop battlefields used in military academies 100+ years ago to teach tactics and strategy that led to modern wargames. I'm sure plenty of people think simulations are all in the details. How accurately does it represent reality? How much of a given process does it recreate? Are all the knobs in a *real* Cessna there? Does the energy yield of that simulated bomb test coincide with real world tests? But those concerns are dependant on the *purpose* of the simulation. In this case, the purpose is entertainment. Were the purpose research or training for real world combat then the requirements would be much more complex. You could even change the pieces and what you call them, but it would still be an obvious model of basic combat. So it's simple, even a abstract, but a simulation it remains.
Guy Riessen	3 words... Plastic, injection-mold, armymen Does "injection-mold" count as 2 words?  Hmmm.
Hans Kishel	Memoir '44 is not a simulation.  It is a wargame, or a historical boardgame.  First let us define what a simulation is: From BGG glossary  Simulation n. A game that puts major emphasis on accurately depicting historical reality. (See also wargame and re-creation) Wargame n. A game in which players put military units in direct conflict with each other. The goal of these games is typically either annihilation of opponents or the attainment of certain strategic conditions. These types of games will often have high thematic content and a varying degree abstraction. (See also miniatures game)  Re-creation n. A game that takes simulation to a new level by trying to duplicate original historical conditions in detail. (See also simulation) Ok so from the definition we have that a simulation puts major emphasis on accurately depicting historical reality.  Lets see what the summary of the game is from the producers of the game. From BGG, the summary of Memoir '44 Summary From the press release: Days of Wonder announces the upcoming release of Memoir '44 ™, a new historical boardgame where players face-off in stylized battles of some of the most historic battles of World War II including Omaha Beach, Pegasus Bridge, Operation Cobra and the Ardennes.  Memoir '44 includes over 15 different battle scenarios and features a double-sided hex game board for both beach landings and countryside combat. Each scenario mimics the historical terrain, troop placements and objectives of each army. Commanders deploy troops through Command and Tactic cards, applying the unique skills of his units – infantry, paratrooper, tank, artillery, and even resistance fighters – to their greatest strength. Ok so from their own definition of what the game is, we have; stylized battles, mimics the historical terrain and troop placements and objectives of each army. So what is the map scale?  What is the unit scale?  Where is the 101^st airborne?  By '44 a German infantry division was not the same strength as US infantry division.  Does the game depict this?  Does it account for the different formations in the German armed forces, ie. VG, FJ, SS, Eastern European units?  The German forces at Normandy were made up of lots of Ukrainians; they did not fight as well as the normal German formations.  It does not depict actual units or specific battles, in a historically accurate sense.  Now you might say ….well…. it is a grand tactical simulation of battles in WWII, and that is fine, but to be a simulation it would need to simulate economic or political factors then, and as far as I can see it does not.  So in terms of the BGG definition of simulation game, it is not. Now if you just go with a loose definition of what a simulation game is then yes it is a simulation, the same way that Lost Cities is a simulation of exploring, or Monopoly is a simulation of owning property and getting rich or going broke. If you call the game a simulation, you might get grogdards coming to play the game.  They will bring along all of there quirks, and personality along with them.  Do you really want that to happen? Call it a WWII boardgame, or a lite WWII wargame.  Don't bring the grognards into the games that you enjoy or they might start calling wargames, Euro's and suck you into it.
Harold Jansen	I would argue that Memoir '44 is a simulation, but to explain why, we need to look at what makes a simulation a simulation. I don't see simulations and games as either/or categories, but as the ends of a continuum. At the one end are games that have little, if any, theme, and tend to be more on the abstract end. Most Euro games fall into this end of the continuum. At the simulation end are games that are trying to recreate historical events or situations. A lot of traditional wargames are found at this end. I think we need to recognize, though, that even the most detailed simulations involve a certain amount of abstractions. The mroe complex historical wargames can only simulate so many thigns or they become unworkable. Even rich, complex, and detailed games such as ASL can only simulate so much of the combat experience. So where does this leave Memoir '44. I'd put on the simulation side because it is at least trying to simulate historical situations and will approximate somewhat the outcomes and the dynamics of the historical situation. It definitely simplifies and abstracts a lot of the detail found in games such as ASL or even simpler simpler games such as Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge. I would argue, however, that this is a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. Memoir '44 is definitely more of a "game" than some of the examples above, bu, seen in the broad spectrum of games out there, lies towards the simulation end of things.
HermitSinister	Memoir '44 is clearly a simulation of World War II era combat. While I have not played the game, I am familiar enough with it through reviews and perusing the rules to know what it is about. I also own Battle Cry, a similar game. Both games provide a toolset (board, terrain, pieces) to build scenarios which simulate the layout of real battlefields from there respective eras. These simulate the physical make-up of these famous conflicts. The ruleset and the players are the part of the toolset which enables the simulation of the conflict itself. All of rhese things together create a game whose goal is to simulate historic World War II (or Civil War) battles. So in my mind, the question shouldn't be whether or not Memoir '44 (and other "light" war games) are simulations. The question should be: "Is Memoir '44" a good simulation?". This is of course an opinion that will differ amongst gamers, dependign on what they are looking for in a game which simulates historical conflicts. I think that the answer to this question will be divided amongst the lines of those that consider themselves "war gamers" and those who have a casual interest in historically themed games. War gamers, I think, have an interest in simulating historic battles to the furthest extent. Basically make it as close to reality as possible using game mechanics. Games like Memoir '44 fail this requirement, perhaps because they could be considered a "light" simulation. The basics are there: terrain effects, unit attack strength, etc., but it is simplified. However, this is exactly what makes the game draw a different audience. That audience includes me, someone who is interested in historical simulations, but doesn't want to commit to a hardcore ruleset, or detailed simulations that will take hours or days to play out. However, I still want a game that is based on a real historic event and does a good job at recreating that event using fun game mechanics. I think games like Battle Cry and Memoir fit that bill nicely. If you still aren't convinced that Memoir '44 is a simulation, I offer the following observation. Take Memoir (or Battle Cry) an remove the historical context and in particular the well researched scenarios based on real battles and you are left with a generic period conflict game that all of a sudden wouldn't be as interesting. It's the simulation of a real period in history that makes the game interesting to me and I suspect others, not the fact that it is a strategic combat game.
Ian Mackey	M44 is not a simlation. For me simulation means that the game needs to bring historical elements that were relevant to the battle and has game mechanisms that try to put players into understanding the dilemmas involved. Having a game point out facts that normally come out in a history channel episode, means that the simulation has done its job. M44 does not do this on a large enough scale to cross this threshold. Yes you have a representation of the force sizes involved, strategic targets, and terrain effects, but for me M44 is too tactical and not strategic enough to earn the simulation moniker. But M44 is a wargame (sorry Joe)
James Napolitano	Ole Memoir '44. Is it a  Simulation ? It is, a fun Game!
Jared Hageman	Memoir 44 is not a simulation because during WWII the armies didn't switch sides after one battle and try it again to count up the total overall "points" to see who won.
Jason Hurd	Here are four separate dictionary definitions of the word "simulation."  Do these definitions represent the "heart of the definition" as Joe mentioned in the podcast?  Well, to be honest, they're just the definitions. I think that's all we have to go on.  (Perhaps "heart of the definition" is a euphemism which means "what *I* think a simulation is or isn't."  Sorry, Joe!  :) ) The definition(s): Simulation 1. The act or process of simulating (simulate - to create a representation or model of (a  physical system or particular situation, for example). 2. An imitation; a sham. 3. Assumption of a false appearance. 4. a. Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing.    b. Representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another The lowdown -- examining the criteria: 1. Does Memoir '44 through an act or process create a representation or model of a physical system or particular situation?  Yes.  It creates a model and representation of specific Word War II battles and a system of combat through a board game mechanism. 2. Is Memoir '44 an imitation or a sham?  Well... yes, technically.  It's definitely NOT an actual World War II battle.  It looks a bit like one, but it's not.  So, I guess that would make it both an imitation AND a sham. (Only in the best sense of both words!) 3. Can we assume that Memoir '44 is not an actual World War II battle?  Yes. As beautiful as the game components are, we can assume this because of it's false appearance.  The pieces just aren't convincing enough to make me think otherwise, so we assume it to be false. :) 4. a. Is Memoir '44 an imitation or a representation of a potential situation?  Indeed.  It imitates and represents many possible potential situations and scenarios that never actually occurred in Word War II -- especially when the "bad" guys win! 4. b. Does Memoir '44 represent the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another?  Yes.  It uses the features, mechanism, and gameplay of a board game to represent the features and combat mechanisms of specific World War II battles. The verdict: In a court of law, I'd say that Memoir '44 is overwhelmingly guilty of being a simulation.  Is that good or bad?  I don't know; I've not yet played it. But I'd sure like own a copy and give it a try! In closing, a summary Haiku -- just because: A simulation - Memoir Forty Four for one. Please won't you pick me?
Jason Landreth	I could write a lengthy argument discussing what a simulation is and exactly how several aspects of Memoir '44 are modeled to at least loosely simulate parts of an actual World War II battle.  I could then write several paragraphs debating whether there is enough detail in the game to have any value as a true simulation.  However, I think that in this case short and sweet (like the game itself) is the way to go. A battle is nothing but controlled chaos that can be won or lost due to any number of uncontrollable factors. The combination of dice and command cards in Memoir '44 perfectly simulates this combination of controlled chaos and uncontrollable factors creating both a fun game and a loose simulation in the process.
Jason Nachtrab	24 August, 1944 Lt. J. Cochrane, 12th Platoon, Bravo Company Journal Entry It's getting tougher to find the time to keep these entries. We've been moving fast this week, probably covering 35 miles in the last couple of days. We're heading into the front tomorrow morning to try and secure ground near the Rhone, just upriver from a French town called Montelimar. The Germans have held this place for awhile and it's going to be tough rooting them out. Scouts have reported seeing entrenched positions, sandbagged artillery, MG42 nests, all kinds of things I don’t want to deal with. Hopefully we get the job taken care of and secure the area without too much trouble. I'd love to see the inside of a nice town for awhile, I'm getting so tired of farmhouses and sleeping out in the open. 25 August, 1944 Lt. J. Cochrane, 12th Platoon, Bravo Company Journal Entry Bad day. So many things didn't go well, and it's getting tough for the men to keep their spirits up. The assault began at 1100, with 9^th, 10^th, and 12^th Platoons heading into Grane. 12^th took the east side of the village and accompanied the armor into the center of town. Makarsky and Tanner led our company on point, and we tried to hold off the German advance. Before the other units could get in place the Germans hit the town hard and pinned us down. Thanks to these ridiculous rules of engagement, we couldn't even fight back until we got orders from command. 10^th Platoon was wiped out and we lost Baker, Powalksy, Jenkins, and Scott before word came to start shooting back. Who on earth thought this was a good way to run a war? Our orders would have given us a good chance to repulse the German infantry, but by the time they came through it was too late. We were forced to fall back and let the Germans take the town. They rolled what looked like an entire brigade of armor in there. I don’t know if we’ll be able to take it back, especially if Command suddenly goes silent in the middle of an operation again. 26 August, 1944 Lt. J. Cochrane, 12th Platoon, Bravo Company Journal Entry After falling back from Grane, 12^th Platoon was redeployed to the west and advanced through Condillac pass this morning, hoping to cut into the German lines and make it to the river. A few units from the 301^st Armored Cav went with us, and it was nice to finally have some armor support. Back on the beaches it was the infantry spearheading the assault, and the tank crews were held back until we’d silenced the artillery bunkers. Command seems to think infantry is better at taking out bunkers, but I can’t believe my M1 is better than a tank gun at knocking down concrete walls. So many things about this war just don't make any sense. At least I have a few hours to rest here before this afternoon's assault. 26 August, 1944 - Evening Lt. J. Cochrane, 12th Platoon, Bravo Company Journal Entry The infantry assault today was a success, but we had a couple of rough hours during the day. Early on we got caught by a couple of German units hitting us from the south in a counterattack, and again for some reason we had no orders and no way to hit them back. You'd think that when I see them I can shoot them, but "the rules" say to wait for orders. I'm just about ready to say to hell with the rules. We advanced south after finally getting the okay to actually fight, and ran into some entrenched patrols. The Germans had a solid defensive position built up, with razor wire and lots of sandbagged foxholes. A couple of their units were so well protected I thought we’d never get them out, but we finally hit them with enough men to force a retreat. Command ordered us forward to take the ground they’d left, and instead of the fortifications we expected to occupy we found they'd taken every single sandbag with them. How on earth they managed that I have no idea, but where was there was a heavily sandbagged outpost there's nothing left but grass and weeds. German logistics must be amazing to take away an entire set of fortifications while retreating under fire. I've heard rumors of Hitler's scientists working on some sort of "occult magic", but figured that for hogwash. Now I'm not so sure. There's no way they should have been able to do that. The rest of the day was rough, and we lost quite a few men before the day was over. The tank units could have been a bigger help, but Command seemed content to keep them back firing from maximum range. I’m sure they’re safer that way, but I sure wish somebody would worry about keeping us safe. Second and third platoons are down to just a handful of men, after being hit with an artillery barrage that seemed to come out of nowhere. I thought we'd destroyed all the artillery in the area. Command is keeping them deployed as separate units rather than letting them all stick together, even though they’re obviously more vulnerable. It doesn’t make sense to me, but they must know something I don't. Our men are pretty ragged right now, but at least we took care of the Germans in this area and sent them back to Montelimar. Our job was taking this ground near the Rhone, and that’s done. Aw, nuts. We just got word from the Captain that we're heading back into the fight at dawn. Our mission was taking this ground near the Rhone, and we did that. Apparently that's not good enough, and “victory” means we have to take out more of the Germans. Some squads are down to just a handful of men, and we're going back into the fight? Who’s running this war, an 8-year-old? The above is solely a product of my imagination, but represents some of the aspects of Memoir ’44 which, when taken in a “realistic” context, don’t make sense. There are many things that are simulated quite well in Memoir ’44, such as movement, line of sight, and ranged firepower. In order to be a simulation, however, I feel that all aspects of the game should represent an actual war, at least to the point that you maintain the mechanics of a good board game. Some of the rules and game aspects highlighted in the dramatization deviate from this and alter Memoir ’44 from a simulation into simply a very good light wargame. Removing sandbags from play after an entrenched unit moves, restricting depleted units from recombining with each other, and requiring further combat action after the scenario objectives have been met are all gameplay decisions that work well within the context of the game. However, they do not represent reality. It may be a pedantic argument but I m