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 maintain that Memoir ’44 is not a simulation.

Jeph Stahl

Reference and assumptions:
  Simulated bacon bits are a simulation of real bacon bits

Simulated bacon bits have the flavour of real bacon bits.
Memoir 44 has the flavour/theme of war.

Simulated bacon bits have the texture of real bacon bits.
Memoir 44 has bits that abstractly represent the bits of war. (soldiers, terrain)

Simulated bacon bits have similar results as real bacon bits.
Memoir 44 doses not have similar results as war. (although it is possible)

Simulated bacon bits have the look of real bacon bits.
Memoir 44 has the look of war. (as viewed from air with squinted eyes)

Simulated bacon bits are function as real bacon bits.
Memoir 44 does not function as war.  (not many roll-offs in war)

Conclusion
  Memoir 44 is a simulation of war, but not a goot one. 
Sort of like a 'no-name' brand of simulated bacon bits.
Looks like bacon bits, but tastes like cardboard and turns my salad brown.

Jeremy VanSchalkwyk

Memoir '44: An Inaccurate Simulation

Memoir '44 (Days of Wonder, 2004) is a game that attempts to recreate some of the various battles from World War II.  While it has often been debated whether or not it is a "simulation" of these battles, it is actually a simulation.  However, Memoir '44 is not a very accurate simulation.

Merriam-Webster says this about a "simulation":  "[a simulation is] the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another ".  Clearly, Memoir '44 is simulating the "system" of combat, by means of the dice-and-cards system within the game.  The true issue, however, is not if Memoir '44 is really a simulation.

Rather, the issue truly at debate is about the accuracy of the simulation within this game.  Whereas more detailed "war games" have expansive hit tables, more in-depth terrain and elevation modifiers, etc…, Memoir '44 abstracts most of these details.  A few terrain types will modify the number of dice that are rolled, and indeed the dice themselves have a bit of a hit table built into them, with their varying symbols.  However, the level of detail in the simulation is far less in this "light war game", than it is in many other war games.  While the randomness of the cards do "simulate" the potential communication issues within a battle (particularly one in an older time-period, lacking GPS equipment, satellite radios, etc…), it is again an abstracted way to represent these issues.

Overall, it is clear that Memoir '44 is, in fact, a simulation.  The randomness of the cards, the different symbols on the dice, and the modifiers based on terrain, all contribute to the system used to represent the variety of possible outcomes of a battle.  While lacking in some accuracy, Memoir '44 still shows the characteristics of a simulation.

Jesper Edmark

Since I have never played Memoir ’44 (or even seen the game being played) it is hard for me to put any of this down to my own experience. However, I did a research of what different people had said about the game and has thus formed my own opinion about whether the game is a simulation or not.
The thing that speaks FOR the simulation is that the scenarios obviously aren’t balanced but rather made to more accurately fit the historical conditions. That is quite a big plus!

The things that speak AGAINST the simulation aspect are summed up rather good by the four quotes below:

"In all, there’s a real ebb and flow across the battlefield since only a few units are active at any given time." (Pete Gade – Wargamer.com)

"Strange rules and the suspension of disbelief. Even with a game as simple as this, it is good to have the rules not scream "UNREALISTIC" at you too often. Artillery ignoring bunkers as defensive terrain, 360 degree bunkers, some retreat and LOS situations all can bring what sense of simulation there is to a screaching halt. I understand why most of these rules and situations
exist, but they still annoy me." (Dan Edwards – BGG)

"So is Memoir '44 a realistic game? Not in a technical sense. There's no real differentiation between different models of tanks, and real armies don’t freeze their right flank while they move their left." (Michael Peck – Discovery Military Channel)

"And yes, I realize it is not a "true" simulation, if there is such a thing. (Heck its just a boardgame!)" (J. P. Morgan – BGG)

As you might suspect I’m leaning towards the NOT a simulation standpoint. For a game to be a simulation I would say it needs at least simultaneous movement. Realism is hard to achieve, but a rule set that does so has come a long way towards being a simulation.

Jim Forsythe

My line of work is to simulate the effect of airflow over aircraft and/or vehicles using computers.  In this line of work, there are many levels of simulation of varying degrees of accuracy, fidelity, and cost (in computer time).  The most accurate of these simulation methods simulated the trajectory of the foam coming off the shuttle, and its impact point, helping to explain the space shuttle crash.  However, this simulation likely had to run on hundreds of processors for days.  On the other end of the spectrum are simulation methods that can run in a few seconds on a personal computer.  However they lack the ability to predict complex geometries, shock waves, boundary layers, etc.  They are extremely useful for getting a quick first look at a design, or to screen hundreds of configurations to pick a handful of winners for further analysis with more rigourous methods.  The feature all these simulation methods have in common despite their varying degrees of rigour are that they all bring in some physics of the problem (but not necessarily all). 

            Likewise, for a board game to be considered a simulation, it must bring in some level of realism.  Although the amount of realism brought in determines the fidelity of the simulation, more realism also leads to more complexity and more cost (in terms of playing time).  The highest fidelity simulations of war are run by the military on large supercomputers for days on end.  Compared to this, a game like Advanced Squad Leader looks trivially simple, and Memoir '44 even more so.  However, both ASL and Memoir are simulations (albeit low-level simulations), since they bring in some realism.  Compared to each other these two games seem vastly different, with ASL much more rigorous, but more "costly" (in human time).

            Memoir '44 contains at least three attempts at realism that qualify it as a simulation.  The first is that the different units very roughly follow the capabilities of the real thing.  I.e. Infantry are easier to kill than tanks.  Tanks have further range than infantry.  Artillery have the best range of all.  Second, terrain effects are also roughly simulated.  Units in the open are easiest to kill.  Units in towns or forests are harder to kill.  Units behind sandbags are less likely to need to retreat.  Finally, command and control is also roughly simulated by the use of cards.  Although one may argue that the simulation of command and control is not highly accurate, at least an attempt is made.  I played Squad Leader as a kid, and at least in the early scenarios, all units were able to move, and since the commander (me) knew every other units position, the command and control was effectively ignored - every unit knew everything.  This is one area where Memoir '44 actually has MORE fidelity than many wargames. 

            Overall, although I would classify Memoir as a low-end simulation (in terms of accuracy), the result is that the game has much lower "cost" than more accurate simulations.  The game can be taught quickly, and I can play it with my eight year old son.  Every engineer knows that a range of tools of varying complexity are required to solve problems, and the same is true for board games.  There's a tool (game) that is right for different situations. For a light wargame simulation, that plays quick - Memoir '44 is an excellent choice. 

Joe

By definition, a simulation "attempts to represent certain features of the behavior of a physical or abstract system by the behavior of another system." (Wikipedia)

Because of this definition, I think that any game which in some way represents aspects or behavior of some system can thus be accurately labeled as a simulation.  Granted, some games will obviously provide more accurate simulations than others, but they are simulations nonetheless.  All games (and all simulations for that matter) must apply some level of abstraction to compensate for factors that are beyond the limits of the game system.  And unlike other closed-system or computer-driven simulations, a game requires direct human interaction to function and should ideally result in an enjoyable experience for the participants (both of which necessitate additional abstractions beyond typical non-game simulations).

Abstractions could be made based on limits of scale -- only breaking down game units to a certain level (a squad for example) means you are synthesizing the individual persons, the individual weapons, the individual bullets, etc.. into the properties and abilities of the single squad "unit".  How do you reflect the probability that a certain gun amongst hundreds (or thousands, or millions) will misfire on a particular shot.  What are the chances that a soldier might sprain his ankle?  How will that impact his combat effectiveness?

They could be made based on limits of scope -- abstracting the larger picture of what is happening in the simulated world outside of the gameboard.  The world does not stop at the edge of the game map -- events occur and decisions are made by people that are not represented by the units on the board.  What if an ammunition manufacturer in Texas produced a defective batch of shells?  What if it's 10 degrees warmer on a particular day than was previously anticipated?

Limits of knowledge and limits of control are two other huge factors that games typically need to abstract.  In an actual war environment, one person could never know nor have such precise control over such a wide range and large number of persons and materiel that a wargame player has so readily available at his fingertips.

Certainly Memoir '44 is a simulation, although it is a more abstract simulation than some other more "serious" wargames.  Wargame terms like "depth" and "chrome" are synonymous with a lower level of abstraction, and a more detailed simulation.  Terms like "light" and "accessible" are synonymous with a higher level of abstraction, and a less detailed simulation.  It can be argued that even when small children playing with army men, even without any hard set of rules, they are taking part in highly abstract simulation.

John Bennett

Memoir 44 is not a simulation.  All you have to do is look at the fixed firing range of he units and the variable scenario scales.

A simulation attempts to present an abstraction of the real world and be consistent with the real world.  For example the distance between places on a map relates to the distances between the real places and is consistent with the scale of the map.  Similarly the firing range of units is consistent with the capabilities of those units in the real world at that same scale.  Scale varies enourmously between the M44 scenarios, and unit ranges do not change from scenario to scenario.  This means M44 is not a simulation.

To illustrate the range vs scale inconsistency in the game let us take two scenarios of very different scale. Firstly, look at the beach landing scenario Pointe-du-Hoc, where the distance between the board edges is a mile or two - infantry firing range is about half a mile. Secondly, look at a tank battle scenario like Arracourt, where the distance between the board edges is well over 100 miles – here infantry can fire at targets up to about 40 miles away.  In a simulation infantry could not fire at targets at this range.

Consistency of scale is a basic requirment of a simulation - and M44 fails this and is therefore a game (one I like a lot and gets better with each play) and not a simulation.

John Burt

Memoir '44 is a light wargame, but not a simulation, except in the broadest sense.

A war game simulation should try to recreate (or simulate) a historical battle. What Memoir '44 does is abstract the simulation factors out (skill of troops, firepower of units) except in the case of elite units. Elite units are no more powerful (combat wise) then green units. The big difference is the amount of damage that they can sustain, or the unit's movement.

Battle Cry, is more of a simulation because it offers another unit to add a little more historical flavour and a way to modify how the unit acts. The general is capable of making units better in combat.

I could go on, but that should suffice, rather than drowning you in analysis.

John Maag

Memoir '44 is not a simulation.  It is a simplistic representation of World War 2 combat.  I do enjoy it for something that plays quick and as a nice introduction to non-wargamers.  A simulation is a game that has rules that attempt to give a realistic outcome based on the units involved..  A true simulation is a game that has rules long enough to make your eyes bleed when you're done reading them and takes 2-3 hours for a 7 turn game, but gives such a feeling of accomplishment at the end that it's all worth it.

John Mitchell

I have no real insight on the Historical Simulation nature of Memoir 44, but it would be nice to win the competition ;)

I'm happy it's a simulation.  It's not the use of tank and infantry minatures that matters, but that the game works up to a point like the real world:  known inputs (such as the use of combined arms) obtain the expected outputs (greater success).   It's not a complete simulacrum of the real world, but then no game can be, though this one is obviously less authentic than grognard wargames.  The answer it will give to what-if questions can't be trusted, but maybe that would be the case even if the rulebook were 40 pages long.

But is it historical?  I think so.  It's as capable as any game of teaching something about a specific battle, though the brush strokes of the picture it paints are very broad.  No matter: if you want to know more, go read a book.  More importantly it describes a specific period of warfare, and differs in its rules from a similar game (Battle Cry) which describes a different conflict.  It's not like chess, which plays the same no matter how the pieces are carved.

So the answer to 'Is it ...' is Yes.  Imho.

John Morgan

Memoir 44 is not a "simulation" because it does not accurately model any level of conflict.  The abstractions are simply too gross to bear any resemblance to the actual planning or conduct of war. Further, a simulation should leave the player with a better understanding of the tactical or strategic problems faced by the historical participants.  Memoir 44 gives no such understanding.  Stretching the definition of simulation to include games like Memoir waters it down to mean little more than "themed on an actual event".

Joseph Cannon

Is Memoir '44 a simulation? Well...

Sweeping up the Normandy beaches amidst a storm of German artillery and machinegun fire...

Initiatives won and then lost as your men are driven back off the bluff...

Move out! as your men leave the cover of the town to engage the enemy...

Under fire! Dig in, dig in...

Left flank assualt card at last...

Attack!

Their finest hour...

If I can just survive one more roll we can take out the artillery emplacement and win...

Oh

No! Enemy air power has blown my unit away!

It may not be detailed at squad level with sheets of modifiers and D20's but if M44 isn't a simulation then my son John (who's 13 and loves this game) and I don't know what is! Admit it, Joe (as a manly man) - this game transports us back to the fiercely fought battles of 1944 in a way that no other does for us hardcore eurogamers, and simulates at just the right level a piece of history that mustn't be forgotten.

Josh Spillers

“What’s your name, scumbag?!”

Sir, Josh Spillers, SIR!

I believe Memoir ’44 is a simulation, sir! Abstract board games favor balance, in that everyone usually has an equal opportunity to win at the start of the game. In contrast, there are scenarios in Memoir that are very unbalanced (as seen in memoir44.com’s battle reports and countless criticisms of the game). Memoir ’44 sacrifices fun and balance for historical accuracy throughout its scenarios. For this reason, among others, I believe Memoir ’44 is a simulation... SIR!

Keith Jones

"Memoir 44" is as much a simulation as ASL is. Agreed that it is at a different level of detail and
represents the problems and confusion faced by overall command, as opposed to the micro-management of ASL, but that doesn't mean it's any less of a simulation. The difference between ASL and M44 is that with M44 you use cards to simulate the confusion and with ASL
you roll the dice. Again and again and again. So, Joe, over to you - is ASL a simulation?

Ken Whitehurst

A game is a simulation if it is intended (1) to produce results that accurately recreate the historic real-world situation on which it is based, or (2) to accurately predict the outcome of situations based on real-world information, but which, in fact, never happened.

Memoir '44 is a simulation.  (No, Joe, it is not as detailed a simulation as ASL. However, ASL is not, in my opinion, a game, but a job.)  It is a simulation because it has modeled the various general units of WWII, and includes an excellent mechanism for determining the outcome of a near-infinite number of matchups.  Each game begins from a historically-based situation, but the game's mechanics force the players to decide the outcome.  True, the players' decisions are different from those of the commanders in the actual battles, but the effect (and endgame results) are often very similar.  Memoir '44 can be used to simulate some general military decision-making (where to make your main effort, thrust/counterthrust, etc.) but is not, of course, a detailed study of squad-based combat.  Is Memoir '44 as good a simulation as ASL?  Probably not.  Is it a simulation? Yes.

Kent Reuber

There is always debate over whether a game is a simulation or not.  I think the reason for these debates is that being a "simulation" isn't like a light switch that's either on or off.  To me, being a simulation is more like a dimmer switch:  there are levels of simulation.  No game can simulate reality perfectly -- at some point certain things have to be abstracted.

For me, the level of simulation in a game can be assessed by how well tactics that would work/fail in real life are reflected in the game. On a 1-10 scale, I'd rate Memoir 44 as about a 4.  However, I still consider Memoir a very fun game--I've had a blast playing both 2 players and Overlord scenarios.

Memoir '44 does a reasonable job of some things.  The game's terrain effects are pretty good:  hills and woods provide cover, making targets harder to hit, sand slows troops down, etc.  Also, infantry and artillery fire effectiveness fall off with range, which is good (though I don't understand why it doesn't for armor).  Troops are also forced to retreat in addition to taking damage.

Things that Memoir '44 doesn't simulate well are more numerous:

One of the biggest problems with trying to assess the simulation is that there is no time, distance or unit scale given.  Are the infantry units squads, platoons, companies?  Are tank units platoons, companies?  What's the ground and time scale?  Without a notion of scale, it's hard to assess whether the game is simulating things accurately.  For example, the number of dice thrown by units doesn't decrease as it takes damage.  Why not?  If it's a reasonably large unit like a company, one can rationalize that there's only a certain fraction of the unit able to fire at one time.  As damage is taken, reserves are moving up, and the amount of fire stays relatively constant.  As damage continues, eventually the unit becomes unable to function and is "destroyed" (really rendered ineffective for combat).  (By the way, the miniature rules Volley and Bayonet use this rational for keeping the
number of attack dice constant as losses occur.)  But, if the units are meant to represent smaller units like squads, it seems to me that keeping the number of fire dice constant is harder to swallow--casualties will have more drastic effects on smaller units.

Armor facing isn't considered.  Most armor units had tough front armor, but were vulnerable from the side or rear.  Conversely, armor and (especially) artillery shouldn't be able to fire in 360 degree arcs easily.  But these factors aren't represented in the game.

One of the biggest problems with Memoir from a simulation point of view is that the attacker has the advantage rather than the defender.  When a side plays an order card in Memoir '44, it can move that unit (perhaps even in the field of fire of an enemy) and make an attack, all without the defender being able to respond.  This was a big problem with PanzerBlitz and became known as the "Panzerbush Syndrome".  Squad Leader implemented the Defensive Fire Phase to address this problem. In WWII and most gunpowder era battles, the defender has a decided advantage because a unit can't fire at full effectiveness unless he's
standing still.  Even with armor, the guns of the period weren't well stabilized, so that a tank can't fire with great accuracy while moving fast.  The way I would change Memoir '44 to incorporate the defender advantage is to change the "order" system to fire first, then move. That way, you can't move up and fire with greater effectiveness at closer range.  You have to take your shot, move up, respond to enemy fire (if any), then take your closer range shot.  For tanks, the number of attack dice needs to decrease if the unit is moving.  I'd suggest shooting with 1-3 dice, then reducing the tanks movement factor by this amount.

The next problem is that movement and fire are usually linked with the order cards.  Usually, either you can move and fire with some units, or you can't do either.  A defender ought to be able to fire at an attacker in most circumstances.  The way I'd fix this in Memoir '44 is to allow "order" cards to affect movement, not firing.  You can always fire at a unit in range, but you need the card to move up or fall back.  This will probably unbalance the scenarios too much and require the attacker to have many more troops than are provided.  Another possibility is to count the "star" result (usually a no effect result) as a casualty or retreat for the *attacker* (attacker's choice).  That is, when the attacker is firing, there are odds that the defender can shoot back even if the defender doesn't have appropriate cards for that sector.

Kevin Gordish

I have not played Memoir 44', but idealistically I think a great war simulation game involves the weapons and movement tactics of the day with a nice combination of luck and strategic skill. I dislike having my carefully laid plans ruined by "The Risk Dice" so I like games with balance. Also, sim games with alliance based relationship I find interesting. Deceit can be unpredictable.

I would write more, but I value your time.

Klay Jaegar

Whether Memoir 44 is or is not a simulation all depends on the person who is playing it. There are enough different aspects that were incorporated into the game that a non war gamer would consider it a simulation, and not enough complexity, that a war gamer would not consider it a simulation. Richard Borg said that, “Memoir '44 is a unique historical game that allows players to effectively portray stylized WWII battles. The battles, show cased in the scenario section, focus on important terrain features and the historical deployment of forces in scale with the game system.”  Both a war gamer and a non war gamer can agree that the official scenarios for the game have done very well incorporating actual historic events and actual terrain details that appeared during the battle, but their views on some of the other aspects of the game will probably differ.  A war gamer might have a problem with the fact that their strategy must be based on commands that are issued from the cards that one has been dealt, instead of being able to  issue orders to all your units.  He would probably also prefer that the units be better represented, such as a unit should represent a unit, not a platoon or a battalion, and that the units should also represent the different  types of weapons that normally would be found in a squad. Moral was simplified with a flag for retreat, and there is no difference in firepower if it is one unit or four units.  

If a person is to consider Memoir 44 as a simulation, then they need to think of it as a simulation in the simplest of terms. The complexity of a true simulation was just not designed into the game; but it has enough good aspects that it is a good game to get non war gamers interested in war games, and still provide a war gamer with a challenge. I think that the following statement by Days of Wonder best sums up the game. “Memoir 44 is designed to commemorate the efforts and sacrifices of the men & women of the Second World War; we trust it will provide all who play it with a sense of history and the desire to learn more about that greatest generation.” 

Kurt Nellis

I'm leaning towards Memoir '44 being a simulation, if very simplified. First off, let me qualify (or dequalify my answer), I'm not a wargamer more of a Eurogamer who's played Risk before.  Also, I've never been in war, commanded a battalion, squad, or platoon (aside from Starcraft/Warcraft), or been in the military for that matter.  Also, I've never played M44 but I'm hoping to after the Christmas haul comes in (fingers crossed).

Why a simulation?  Again, let me emphasize that it's a simplified simulation, but a simulation none the less.  It seeks to simulate on the level of a commander pushing tokens around on a board, using spotty radio conditions, being unable to contact troops when most necessary, not taking into account all of the weather conditions, smoke, etc.

Basically, looking at the battle in a macro sense, similar to Black Hawk Down, which from what I understand was pretty faithful to events, if slightly dramatized in the movie.  That being the case, war on the commander level can amount to commands, "Go there and shoot at them,"followed by waiting for the results, even more so in WWII.  Just as they didn't always have access to all abilities (air strikes for instance) at all times, something the deck of cards attempts to simulate.

M44 seems to be a playable representation of this simplification of the 'war room.'  The combat resolution element is very simplified, as is fog of war, etc. to make it accesible to the general public, not to mention making it playable in under an hour, something you can't even accomplish with Risk.

Bottom line, it's a simulation.  A simplified simulation, but a simulation none the less, just as Life (the computer algorithm, not
board game) is considered a simulation.

Kurt Rompot

Is Memoir '44 a simulation?  NO!!!

Its representation of WWII is too abstracted to be considered a simulation.

1.  There is no differentiation of the strengths of the various types of units versus one another.  For example, an infantry unit can be just as effective against armor as an armor unit.
2  Units do not lose effectiveness as they take losses.  As long as you have one figure remaining, you might as well be full strength.
3.  The shared deck does not always provide a realistic portrayal of the situation.  For example, boths sides can always get an airstrike card although the German airstrike is weaker.

It is a fun game.  But it is not a simulation.

Lance Roberts

Memoir '44 is a game with historical & military flavoring, like a lot of Eurogames. It isn't a simulation, because while all the specific effects of the different units and terrain have been chosen to relatively show their different capabilities, it isn't apparent that results approximating reality are being achieved, or were even desired.  A war simulation should strive to produce realistic &
historical results, with mechanisms that cause the players to move & react similar to their historical counterparts.

Larry Gritti

Memoir 44 is not a simulation because it is FUN!

Larry Tuxbury

Memoir '44 is not a simulation. I think a simulation struggles to get the specific conditions and variables of a specific historical event almost exactly right. The pieces on each side should be as close as possible to the strength and speed of the opponent's in the original, real-life situation. The terrain and weather conditions should be taken into account. I also believe that real simulations take hours, not minutes to play.

I like Memoir '44, and in fact, a friend of mine and I are playing it tomorrow on Veterans' Day. But we wouldn't be playing it if it was a simulation. We like the theme, the bits, and the quick playing time. It offers only the flavor of the original historical situation, and honestly, that's enough for us.

Long Tin Jui

Personally think Memoir'44 is a good war game. Since I don't know much about REAL war games or war games simulation. Memoir'44 is closest thing to war game simulation I know of. It might not have the most realistict rules mechanics, but when I play Memoir'44, it feels like I'm re-living that historical war. The historical bits that was added in the scenario text, do enchanced the immersion, at least for 30mins or so.
So if you ask me if Memoir'44 is a war game simulation, I would say yes.

Mark Ballinger

The film director Samuel Fuller, when asked if his movie "The Big Red One" accurately captured for its audience what happened in World War II, quipped that the only thing that could possibly do that would be live ammunition fired at them while they watched.

I've never played Memoir '44, nor its predecessor Battle Cry, so I can't comment on the game's ability to simulate any campaign in Europe during the war.  Instead, I'd offer these suggestions for what a "simulation" in a board game must have:

* Game elements must be specific elements of the situation simulated.  Some things from the real-life model have to be abstracted.  You can't use real weapons against your opponent!  And it's not really raining!  But, are units, cards or map elements being added to make it a game, or is everything represented something that faced the actual people fighting in that time?

* The game theme should not be easily interchanged with another unless the game elements are highly abstracted.  Can the coastal elements of the Memoir map be renamed a swimming pool, and the units reclassified as reptiles and would you still have a game that makes sense?

* The rewards of gameplay must model and depend on actions that where available to those involved in the actual event.  A good simulation should not reward a player for goofy ahistorical tactics.

* Game balance may be sacrificed for adherence to the theme.  Either side in a war game does not have to be able to wipe out the other player.  Yes, a good game lays out a reachable victory condition for each side, but your good "simulation" should not overcompensate the real-life losers to make it come out even.

Finally, language is loose.  Joe could, one day, announce that "game theory" is the study of how to win at games.  Tom, as a mathemetician, could say he's all wet. "Game Theory" is a very specific mathematical model and has nothing to do with how to win at games.  Joe could say, "tough", the phrase means no more nor less than what he means.  In the same way, Tom can throw around "simulation" all he wants.  It doesn't mean he's right.

Mark Coomey

Whether or not Memoir ’44 is a Simulation.

The answer to this question is easy.

No.

Ok..Hang on, hang on..let me explain a little further..

I’ll admit here that Memoir 44 could be considered a wargame.

Wargames, like all games, exist in a range of complexities: some, like Memoir 44, are fundamentally simple (so-called "beer-and-pretzel" games), while others (generally in an attempt to increase the 'realism' of the situation) produce rule sets that may encompass a large variety of actions (so-called "monster" games).

Simpler rulesets, on the other hand, produce "fun" games, but may not accurately depict events that historically took place in a conflict. The terms "wargame, "model" and "simulation", are terms which are commonly (and incorrectly) used interchangeably, but each term means quite something different.

Here are my definitions:

Wargames are usually simpler than models and simulations because, as the names imply, a wargame is something of a competitive game that is played, while a model is a more detailed representation of a specific military event.

A model duplicates a function in great detail and exactitude.

A simulation is a model, or collection of models, that can be more easily manipulated to test "what if" questions.

A simulation is a model that can move in many different directions.

A conflict simulation is another name for wargame, one that leaves out the two unsavory terms, "war" and "game."

To summarise, with the limited options one can perform in the game, dependant on the cards drawn by you and your opponent. With no loss of strength to units as they get shot down and reduced in numbers. With the luck of the die, determining whether you have a lucky escape or major defeat. It would be a wild statement to consider Memoir 44 a simulation.

There is no detailed representation of a historical event. Memoir 44 is not about exactitudes and detail.

Memoir 44 is purely about fun. It’s a light wargame that has stripped down all the fiddly rules and exceptions and huge rule sets that are evident in heavier wargames. Rather than being considered a model or simulation, it is what it is, and doesn’t shy from the fact that it is a light ‘beer and pretzels’ game that can be learnt and played by anyone, gamer or non game, grognard or eurogamer.

This is why I have sent my opinion, not to convince the reader, but rather, to try and win the goodies so that I can further enjoy more of the fun in Memoir 44.

Mark Widner

I must say that I have played Memiors once. I love military history mostly from growing up watching all the old WWII movies so playing Memiors is interesting to me. I understand that many hard core military folks will not think this is a simulation. What I find interesting is that this game will help me introduce my kids to history that is over 60 years old now. I think it is a simulation in that my kids and I can simulate the battles without all the complexity of being strictly tied to the rules to the point that the outcome is completely predicted and weighted as such. I hope as my kids grow up more that I will be able to introduce them to the more complex traditional simulations that are out there including, dare I say it, "Advanced Squad Leader".

Matt Carlson

Memoir '44  _IS_ a historical simulation.  However, it might be a poor one.

In scientific research (I teach physics & chemistry in H.S.), many discoveries are supported or disproved using models.  Scientists make assumptions about complex things in nature to try to reduce the complexity down to something manageable and able to be simulated on a
computer.   Some things can be learned, but if the assumptions are wrong, you learn the wrong thing.

Memoir '44 is a very simple simulation and many things have been abstracted away.  However, some things can still be learned.  Things like:  "The Allied forces will take heavy casualties taking the beach" can be demonstrated within the game.  Even different beach-taking strategies can be analyzed (should the tanks lead the charge onto the beach, or follow from behind?).

Since it _can_ be used to simulate historical battles, it is a historical simulation.  It may not be a good simulation (accurate, in this case) particularly in some of the more minor details that a fan of historical wargames would be interested in, but it can be used to demonstrate and analyze some very simple situations and outcomes.

I don't quibble with those who wish to create a "category" of historical simulations and leave this game outside that category.  However, anyone not deeply involved in the wargaming hobby would probably consider Memoir '44 a historical simulation.

Matt Double

Whether or not something can be said to be a simulation is largely subjective. No simulation can be perfect or even complete, so usually a narrow selection of elements is focused on to be emulated and even these tend to be abstract.

Is Memoir '44 a simulation? Well you can't really say that it definitely isn't one. It simulates a few elements of WWII era warfare so if someone wishes to view it as a simulation, they certainly aren't wrong.

Matt Sab

Memoir is as good a simulation of WWII as The Sims (computer game) is a simulation of life.

Matthew Gagan

Memoir '44, while an excellent, light boardgame with the trappings of a simulation, and a theme of WW II combat, is not a "simulation", nor does it aspire to be one.  War simulations make an attempt at realistic results given a fixed set of units and environment - the emphasis for Memoir '44 is clearly on FUN.  The cards and dice give it more of a "game" feeling.  Not that historical simulations can't be fun, but their appeal is to a much smaller crowd.  Rules have to be relatively lengthy, (and often complex), to realisitically simulate squad level combat - Memoir '44s rules are neither.

Matthew Wills

Certainly it is! There can be no question.

Lets look at the dictionary definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simulation

The dictionary defines simulation as:

1. The act or process of simulating.
2. An imitation; a sham.

From your podcast it is clear that Tom believes Memoir 44 is simulating the particular conflicts it mentions in the rulebooks. Joe believes it is not simulating them - it is thus, in effect, an imitation; a sham!

Thus, it is perfectly clear, whatever the side that one takes, that Memoir 44 is indeed a simulation. The dictionary does not lie!

Michael Berglund

Common mathematical and philosophical reasoning can easily prove the statement above. You were math teachers right?
Let us put up a null hypothesis: Memoir 44 is a simulation
Let us try to prove this by induction:
(This should be true for n, n+1, n+2, etc)

Memoir 44 is a simulation
Wallenstein is a simulation of the 30 years war
Liberte is a simulation of the French revolution
-
-
Moon and Faiduti's Diamant is a simulation of gem mining
(There are no 'fantasy' elements; all dangers are real: poisonous gas, explosions, etc.)

Since nobody would agree on this the null hypothesis failed and hence Memoir 44 is not a simulation!
---
My personal opinion is that Memoir 44 is a game with a strong theme.
I have a PhD, so how can I be wrong ;-)

Mike Haverty

Memoir 44 is NOT a simulation. First and foremost, the realism of the game is sacrificed in favor of gameplay mechanics. For example, the alternating turns between players in which orders are almost always given to a small subset of one's forces. In a simulation, one would expect one's troops to act simultaneously, not in small blocks here and there, subject to the whim
of card draw. This is an example of a gameplay mechanic that adds tension to the decision-making facing each player and introduces a small chance element that levels the playing field somewhat between different skill levels, rather than contributing to the realism.

By the way, I think many people confuse realism with level of detail. For example, Memoir 44 does not include rules for something like lines of supply. This does not automatically fail it as a simulation; I think one could have a simulation that simply did not include that level of detail, provided the rules that ARE included are consistent with simulation. Conversely, one could have a game that did include rules for supply lines for your forces, but if those rules were based on something unrealistic like
being able to play a Supply card from your hand each turn rather than tracing a path to a friendly depot or city, that would be an example of more detail, but unrealistic and thus not simulation-like. Simulation and level of detail are two separate aspects of a game, in my opinion.

Mike Kolruss

I am new to the "new" boardgame scene but I have discovered or should I say I have had it pointed out to me that I am a Euro Weenie.  I enjoy medium to heavy weight games that play in less than two hours.  Three is really pushing it.  Five is right out.  I am attracted to a game with nice bits and I curl my lip in disdain at cardboard counters.  (not really but it adds a dramatic flair).  I prefer wooden bits to plastic and I prefer coins to paper money.  I am a Euro Weenie. 

What has this got to do with the contest?  I think it speaks to the core of the question:  Is memoir 44 a simulation?  I would say no.  Memoir 44 is not a simulation.  It is a WWII themed Euro. 

A simulation of a WWII battle would involve considerable more detail than included in Memoir 44 and any Grognard worth his salt would tell you a decent simulation that pays even a passing attention to realism of detail would play in no less than four hours.  Quick games are for Euro Weenies.

A simulation would also involve more strategy in the planning and deployment of troops and eliminate the luck of the cards.  Luck in a simulation?  The very idea that something as trivial as chance could sway the outcome of a battle is very un-Grognard.  Luck is very Euro Weenie.

Plastic soldiers also lead us away from a simulation.  The unit conveys no information to the gamer and each soldier or group of units is generic in its makeup.  The plastic bits detract from the Grognard experience and tempt even the most jaded of Grognards to make shooting/machine gun sound effects while attacking the enemy.  Sound effects are very Euro Weenie.

Memoir 44 is in my opinion a themed Euro and beyond being a gateway game of sorts, very much the anti-Grognard and a Euro Weenie non-simulation.

Mike Weaver

 Is Memoir 44, an entertainment product produced by company Days of Wonder, a war simulation? Or is it simply an exercise in entertainment wrapped up in a wartime theme? I've decided that the fairest way to approach this four thousand year old conundrum would be through a strictly analytical standpoint.
    Game or simulation? It doesn't matter to the majority of the populace, but to those it does pertain to, these two words elicit quite a few emotions. The "gamers" are often viewed as mindless, die rolling pawns shuffling along predetermined paths, while the "grognards" are viewed as slide-rule carrying geeks clutching charts and comparing numbers. While there doesn't seem to be a median to the two groups, the common denominator cannot be ignored that both hobbies produce entertainment within its ranks. With this in mind, let us next look at the true definition of the words, game and simulation, to see if anything more is shared between them.
   *Game *(gm) n.-1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. Now this proves interesting. The examples,albeit only two of them, within the very definition of the word, game, do not mention war. It could be argued, however, that with certain accents, the example "word games" could sound like "war games". Because of this, Memoir 44 cannot truly be discounted as merely a game. Now let's look at the word, simulation.
   *sim·u·la·tion *(smy-lshn) n.-1. An imitation; a sham. It is at this point that the "gamers" begin their congratulatory pats on
the back accompanied by cries of jubilation. "A sham!", they cry. "The Grognards hobby is for naught!" A breakthrough, dear readers. But, alas, not in the way the "gamers" have envisioned. While the answer to the topic is not among us, something else has reared its head. The "grognards" play simulations. That much is agreed upon. The "gamers" also, however, play a form of simulation. Be it simulating stock trades, building management, or programming robots, both the "grognards", and the "gamers" participate in shams, created solely for entertainment purposes. The basis of this written piece is to determine the status of
Memoir 44,  not for the unification of these two groups, and because of this, it's time to take to the big guns.
   Throughout all of history, if one were to need answers, one simply had to climb atop the nearest mountain peak and talk to the old man seated atop.  These days,  science has been able to save the modern man the trouble of doing this, and encased the brain of these old men deep inside the Magic Eight Ball. Having acquired one of these rarities, we shall learn together, the answers to our eternal question. *Is Memoir 44 a simple game and not a simulation? /Cannot predict now.    /*Disappointing, but let's ask the next question. *Is Memoir 44 a war simulation? /Yes definitely./*
We cannot be satisfied with this answer. On one hand, the ball emphatically shouts, "Yes! Yes! It is a simulation!" On the other hand, the answer to whether Memoir is a simple game is ambiguous. Can the Magic eight ball be trusted with a question of this pertinence?
   Lastly, I have consulted with my wife regarding this issue. "Memoir is a game," she says. When pressed further, her only response is "because it's fun." I believe there is now enough information to answer the question.  Looking at the facts, simulations and games, while having distinct players, share the purpose of entertainment. This is echoed by their definitions, linking these two groups closer together, but muddying Memoir's place in any category. The similarities between the groups seems to have affected the eight ball's judgment regarding games, but not simulations. My wife's opinions directly oppose those of the eight ball. Are we back where we started? Not at all. Is Memoir 44 a war simulation or a eurogame? The answer is yes.

Nathan Beddes

I'm a eurogamer and haven't played any war games for lack of opportunity. However, a new guy came to our game night last Thursday. He's a wargamer and brought along his Memoir '44 so I had an opportunity to play one scenario.

I believe we played the "Pegasus Bridge" scenario, with me as the Germans. It was a very fun game, though I lost badly. I can't wait to play again. I was impressed with the way players were to set up battles by configuring terrain, placing units and restricting hand sizes. Before starting play, I felt this would be a simulation, seeing how there were uneven starting and winning conditions -- surely it would reflect the actual battle it was modelled after.

After playing it, I wouldn't call it a simulation for a few reasons. In about 10 turns, I only drew 1 card that allowed me to specifically use my left flank. I understand that there are random events in battle, but I think that in a simulation I wouldn't be able to use a unit because I draw a card affecting them, rather than not drawing a card letting me use them. Another mechanism that sped the game along but doesn't make simulation sense are the splitting/regrouping rules. Finally, not losing Battle dice with units keeps the game fun, but it's not clear to me what that is simulating.

Bottom line: lots of fun, but not a simulation.

NinjaBob

Memoir ’44 Simulation for Stimulation

           Okay, so I listened to the show today, and I heard that there is a way out for those of us who don’t have the game.  But I have spent a week reading rules, reviews, and commentary so I’m just going to go ahead with the original assignment. 

           From what I have been able to gather the argument over whether Memoir ’44 is a simulation or not revolves around what one thinks a simulation is.  From Joe’s Blog, I gathered that some gamers are using the Board Game Geek definition to justify their claims: simulation n. A game that puts major emphasis on accurately depicting historical reality.  But I don’t think most of us think of the word simulation in such a strict sense.  Who are these Derk and Ken guys who wrote these definitions anyway?  Do they have any qualifications as linguists?? (Or are they just know-it-all computer geeks J) An ordinary definition from my small dictionary on my bookshelf (Merriam Webster) says that it’s to give or create the effect or appearance of.  This is what I think of when I think of a simulation.  It’s not an exact copy, but an activity (in this case a game) that recreates some action or event. 

After reading through the Memoir ’44 rulebook, I’d have to say that Days of Wonder has re-created some things that simulate a World War II battle. Detailed miniatures, sandbags, barbed wire, hedgehogs, terrain effects with both offensive and defensive bonuses and penalties, overrunning, taking ground, tanks being tougher to destroy than infantry, special forces, etc. are all included in an effort to give the effect or appearance to the players that they are taking part in a WWII battle. 

Some have mentioned that Days of Wonder themselves have not called this game a simulation.  But what would be the point of creating an expansion pack that includes a winter/desert board if not to simulate winter or desert like battles???  Why create terrain tiles with dams, fortresses, pontoon bridges, trains, and ruins if not to simulate their effect on a WWII battle????

Okay, now I’ll give the wargamers this point.  The simulated materials in Memoir ‘44 are done for the stimulation of the gamer rather than for historical accuracy. But I’m not a serious grognard-type anyway.  I like the WWII appearance and specialized effects which encourage the illusion that I’m playing a game where I am a WWII commander…it’s a simulation.

             Come on all you Joes out there, you really don’t want a total simulation of any war or battle anyway!  Can you imagine a game that simulated war in every way?  I can see the two guys after the game is done, both with their heads hung low, regardless of who won. One saying, “That was Hell!” And the other saying, “Same time next week then?” “Yeah.”

Paul Marshall

I have never played Memoir 44 or other wargames (sorry, Joe) so it would be hard for me to answer whether Memoir 44 is a war simulation or what makes a war simulation.  I really enjoy many Euro-games and have heard great things about Memoir 44.  I'd love to win the Memoir 44 package being offered in the current contest.

Since I don't know that much about Memoir 44, I recently listened to the Odd Couple podcast with Euro-gamer Felix Unger and Wargamer Oscar Madison.  It went something like this.

Musical Intro: ("Why Can't We Be Friends?" by War)

Felix: Welcome to Episode 12 of the Odd Couple.  I'm Felix Unger.

Oscar: And I'm Oscar Madison.

Felix:  Well Oscar, we've gotten some interesting eMails this week.  Rick Quickthorn wants to know what we think about Memoir 44.  "Is it stimulating?" he asks.  I this he means simulation, as in a "war simulation."

Oscar: Rick, Memoir 44 is not bad for a light Euro-game but it's not really a wargame like ASL.  Oops, I wasn't supposed to say ASL.  Well, I can try again next show. ASL (oops), ASL, ASL.

Felix:  What do you mean it's not really a war game.  It's about war and it simulates war.

Oscar:  ASL (oops) simulates war, but Memoir 44 is just another light Euro-game.  It's only good when played with about a hundred real soldiers.

Felix:  I don't care what you say.  Memoir 44 has really cool bits and looks really cool.  And it's fun, fun fun!  And for my money, that makes it a really cool war simulation.  And for those that thinks it's just a Euro-game and doesn't simulate war, I say "shut up."  Just SHUT UP!

Recording:  WHAT'S YOUR NAME, SCUMBAG?

Oscar:  Although it's not a war simulation, my favorite part of the game is when I wipe out my opponents and kill everybody.  Now that's fun.  It's also my favorite part of Bohnanza, Lost Cities, and Flowerpower.  I love to kill everybody in those games.

Felix:  Oscar, you don't kill anybody in Bohnanza, Lost Cities, and Flowerpower.  The rules don't allow for it.

Oscar:  That's what's wrong with your "fun" Euro-games, there's not enough confrontation and killing.  That's why you always need house rules.  Wanna play Diplomacy or Crocodile Pool Party, Sidekick?

Recording:  AND NOW, NUMBERRRRRR NINE!  (Oscar laughs.)

Felix:  Oops, sorry about that.  And I'm not your sidekick and you know I won't ever play those awful games.  Anything else about Memoir 44, Oscar?

Oscar:  Just that I beat you everytime we play, 'cause you're just another weak Euro-gamer.

Felix:  Well let's move on.  And by the way, I don't agree with that last statement.  My kangaroo this week is in the game Australia.  And my turkey is The Thanksgiving Dinner Game, which has a basted-on theme.  Our next question comes from Dork of Boardgamegeek...

Peter Loop

Who better then James F. Dunnigan  to settle this question: A simulation is: “ a combination of “game,” history & science. It is a paper time-machine. Basically, it’s glorified chess….Usually Combines a map playing pieces representing historical personages or military units and a set of rules telling you what you can or cannot do with them….”  James F. Dunnigan,  The Complete Wargames Handbook (1997)

Simulation: M’44 vs. ASL

Realistic Maps: 

ASL: Geomorphic mopboards that generally represent any place

M’44: Map boards with specific terrain hexes to build realistic maps of each battle

Units:

ASL: Thousands of counters (chits) depicting virtually every vehicle, gun and troop type in action during the war by every major and minor combatant nation.

M’44: 100’s of plastic units depicting virtually every vehicle, gun and troop type in action during

Historical personages:

ASL: Private Rayn

M’44: Eisenhower

Rules:

ASL: The FAQ is longer then the M’44 rules…

M’44: Nice in full color, fully illustrated.

Listing on http://grognard.com/ (the definitive Web site)

ASL: Yes

M’44: Yes

Play Online as Vassal

ASL: Yes

M’44: Yes

Dice tower

ASL: Joe (The game that can not be named)

M’44 Tom (isn’t that definitive enough)

M’44 is a simulation!

Phil Ohnesorge

The idea of a historical simulation wargame is to model the capabilities, options, and actions of a war conflict that happened some time in history.

There is some accuracy taken out of the ideal, in order to make the game interesting, playable, or even fun. The ideal would involve buying a bunch of junked WWII hardware, going to France, and actually DOING it.  With real people.  This is obviously impractical (though it does sound fun.)  Instead of flying to France, we draw up maps.  Instead of buying jeeps and
tanks and planes, we use carboard and plastic. Instead of laboriously accounting for each possible shift in wind, visibility, morale, equipment breakage, officer stupidity and terrain, we use dice.  So ANY war game is a far sight from the ideal (though
impractical) historical simulation.

When you point at a game with cardboard pieces, thousands of hexes, rules that can be explained in a few dozen pages, versus Memoir '44, a game with plastic pieces, dozens of hexes, and rules that fit in a few pages, they look very, very similar.  Arguing
whether one is a valid "historical simulation" and the other isn't just seems like a tempest in a teacup.

I feel like a Floridian looking at two Wisconsonites arguing over whether that bit of snow over there is 'slush' or 'slurry'.

Philip Yaure

To decide whether Memoir 44 is a simulation or not, it is important to know what a simulation is exactly.  Some consider it anything that uses real battles and real troops.  Others think it to be something that reenacts the battle or war it is about.  The latter is what I tend to lean to when it comes to using the word simulation.  A simulation is showing what happened in the battle.  So in that case, no wargame would be a simulation, for there would be no point to it, you'd get the same result everytime.  It would not be a wargame, for it to be a game there would have to be some sort of interaction between the player and what happens on the board.  To be a true simulation, there could be no dice, no rulebook, and no players.  Therefore Memoir 44 is not a simulation, along with any other wargame out on the market.

Pierce Ostrander

The Game “Memoir 44” is a simulation of WWII combat.  The word “simulation” is often defined: A representation of the interaction of real-world objects.  This is a very broad definition that not only encompasses a game like Memoir 44 but
also a game like Monopoly.   Even Monopoly is a model of a real system– the hotels and facilities of Atlantic City. When you play Monopoly, you are simulating that system.

Memoir 44 is also a model of a real world system: that of the WW2 battlefield. It includes representations of infantrymen, tanks, artillery and terrain.  The game attempts to simulate the interaction of these elements on the battlefield through a simple system of maneuver and combat.  In addition, it does a fairly good job simulating one of the “holy grails” of war gaming: limited command and control.  Memoir 44 uses a simple card-draw system to limit the all-knowing player to performing only a few actions per turn, with a limited number of his forces and only in certain areas of the board.  This simple mechanic introduces a “real world” factor faced by commanding officers that is absent from most other wargames, and in this way at least, Memoir 44 is arguably one of the
better simulations of the real-world situation faced by most military commanders.

Memoir 44 is an extremely simplified simulation, but it is a simulation none the less.

Randy Reeder

All I have to say is NO WAY IS IT A CONSIM! Ya and Payday is a sim too!

Ray Palmer

BOOM! – See, there’s my simulation of me landing a mortar in Joe Steadman’s fox hole.

What is a simulation?  It is a representation of one process using another. 

I represented the process of Joe nobly dying during WWII with four capitalized letters and exclamation point.

When is a game a simulation?  The answer lies with the designer.  Whenever a game designer is trying to model some aspect of the universe in game form, that game is a simulation.

Is it a good simulation?  That’s up to the players playing the game (though my BOOM! game probably isn’t going to win any awards).  Is the simulation apparent?  Just because you can’t recognize the simulation doesn’t mean the game is not a simulation.  Always a certain level of abstraction will be necessary.

Some simulations are very detailed.  An example would be ASL.  Some simulations are very abstract.  Reiner Knizia has said that Tigris & Euphrates is meant to simulate the rise and fall of ancient civilization, though many claim it is a purely abstract game. 

 I would argue that when a designer comes up with a neat mechanism then builds a game around it, that game is NOT a simulation, no matter what the theme or how good the game is.  I don’t think any war game would fit this category.

 Finally, NO game is a “good” simulation if the intention of the simulation is to mirror reality as closely as possible.  ASL is so far removed from actually commanding real troops during WWII that it might as well be Tigris & Euphrates.

 Joe and Tom, thanks for all the hard work you put in.  I love the show.  In closing, here’s my simulation of Tom doing a pod cast: “SHUT UP!”

Rick

The basic question here concerns the definition of simulation. Generally speaking, the definitions that one sees most often for simulation (and that are synonymous with the word) are representation, imitation and pretense. Less common are definitions that confer the concept of replication or duplication.

 Three definitions I’ve found are:

A simulation creates the appearance of being real, giving the experience of a real situation without risks.

A simulation is a representation of a situation or problem with a similar but simpler model or a more easily manipulated model in order to determine experimental results.

A simulation is any representation or imitation of reality. An instructional strategy used to teach problem solving, procedures or operations by immersing learners in situations resembling reality.

Any one of these definitions would clearly find that Memoir ‘44 scenarios, including the Operation Overlord scenario, are indeed simulations. It is NOT necessary to duplicate the exact number of units in a given war or battle to simulate the circumstances, strategies, results or experience!

Short, to the point and another winner by the gameguy.

Rob Ingersoll

It took me a minute to figure out which way I wanted to go with this one. Finally, I decided that it is NOT a simulation for a couple simple reasons.
First, having never played the game, I think it looks a bit like Axis and Allies - in more than just theme. I also feel that like A&A,
eventually one "killer" strategy could develop turning the game into an exercise in memorization. (note: I mean the old A&A, with thousands of pages of tactical dissection on the web)
Second, It's dice based. I know there has to be some kind of a random element to a war game to keep it fair, but I am not a fan of the "fistful of dice" approach. Custom dice not withstanding (they just cost more when they disappear). Being the unluckiest guy in the world (I netted 24 $1 McDonald Monopoly coupons, when the $3 ones are supposed to be 1 in 3, go figure) I try to avoid dice as much as possible. If anyone comes up with a non-luck based war game (besides chess, go, etc) I'm there.

Robert Cannon

Just because it doesn't meet some cranky grognard's idea of a simulation doesn't mean that it's not.  Come one, how closely does a lookup chart simulate a real battle?  Where's the bullets, the dirt, the blood?

So if we are going to accept that a board of cardboard, cardboard chits, combat resolution tables and dice can make a simulation, how different is Memoir '44 from that?   Memoir '44 gives you a starting position that is taken from a historic situation, a goal based on historic goals and units that are based on historic units and capabilities.  There are rules to govern special units, special terrain.  Heck there is even a commissar rule and rules for ski troops!  What more do you (Mr. Cranky Grognard) want?

Robert Carroll

MEMORANDUM

To: The Dice Tower CC: Joe Steadman, Tom Vasel

From: Robert Carroll Date: November 1, 2005

Re: Is Memoir ‘44 a “good” historical game simulation?[1]

Summary:[2]

What is all the fuss about Renoir ’44? And why in the world would anyone ask whether it is a historical simulation? I opened the box and looked at the bits and for the life of me cannot understand how it is related to Pierre-Auguste Renoir. I mean for a simulation to have any realistic impact it should try to mirror the events of the subject, in this case the life and times of Pierre-Auguste Renoir. What do little plastic tanks, soldiers and barricades have to do with a late 19^th Century French Impressionist? I fully expected a game on par with Modern Art complete with famous paintings by Renoir (e.g., Danseuse, A Girl with a Watering Can, etc.). To my shock and dismay, I found something more akin to Axis & Allis: D-Day. I would have settled for the old Parker Brother’s game Masterpiece with a Renoir theme—but NO. It’s just a bunch of historical scenario cards, maps, and plastic toy army men. Really! And what does the ’44 stand for? In 1844, Renoir was only three years old, and I do not recall anything dramatic or noteworthy happening to him; especially, not involving tanks and artillery guns. As for 1944, Renoir was twenty five years in the ground by then. Even the art on the cards are completely void of any impressionistic influence. You would have thought they could add some more pastels and watercolors to the card art—even if the pictures are of army men and battle scenes. I guess I just don’t get it. What? You say, its Memoir ’44 and not Renoir ’44. Oh? Never mind. Memoir ’44 is a “good” historical game simulation.

Analysis:

To answer the question, Is Memoir ‘44 a “good” historical game simulation?, we really need to explore three issues in relation to Memoir ‘44: (1) What is a game simulation?, (2) What is a historical game simulation?, and (3) What is a “good” historical game simulation? Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “simulation” as “the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another.” Basically then, a game simulation, in its purest form, is the imitative representation of an event (e.g., Risk’s[3] or Attack!’s[4] representation of world war), a period (e.g., Bootlegger’s representation of the 1920’s prohibition influenced criminal world), an economic process (e.g., Motley Fool’s Buy Low Sell High’s representation of the stock market or the venerable[5] Monopoly’s representation of the real estate market), an industry (e.g., Airlines: The Game of Airline Strategy’s[6] representation of the, you guessed it, the airlines industry and Age of Steam, which is one of a legion of railroad industry simulations), or some other complex structure by means of a game system (e.g., dice rolling, game board, hex/counters, miniatures, card driven, auction, etc.). Game simulations also can and address topics in a more abstract format (can you say “Eurogames”), such as Puerto Rico’s representation of the 1500’s Spanish colonial economics or Louis XIV’s representation of power and influence in the French court at the end of the 17^th Century. In this regard, Memoir ‘44 is clearly a simulation by that broad definition as it is an imitative representation of the Normandy invasion of WWII by means of a game system (i.e., hand management driven by battle cards and dice rolling all on a modular or changeable board).

Next, a historical game simulation is merely game simulation which delves further and into greater detail on a specific historical (or real) [7] event, period or process. The key words here are REAL and DETAIL. In essence the historical game simulation has verisimilitude:[8]

[A] game is not a simulation without verisimilitude, the “lifelikeness” that is popularly, if not always correctly, referred to a “realism.” The game of checkers is obviously not a re-creation of anything in life; neither is backgammon. The game of Monopoly, while having some vague resemblance to the real estate business, is still much too unrealistic to be considered a true simulation. In real life, we don’t have to drive down a particular street to buy property there; rent is not fixed permanently and arbitrarily (except perhaps in New York City); our utility bills are not determined by chance; we need not purchase (and tear down) houses before erecting a hotel; and in the income tax rate is rather more than ten percent. On the other hand, a simulation of the Battle of Waterloo will attempt to mirror, with substantial accuracy, the forces present and their actual capabilities, the terrain of the battleground and its effects on the conduct of the engagement, and the tactics and aims of the opposing armies. “Luck” will be confined to the historical uncertainties of combat.[9]

The two most prevalent examples of historical game simulations, or games with plenty of verisimilitude, are wargames and sports games. Wargames, which focus on real wars, campaigns and battles, are the most common types of historical game simulations and tend to devote a considerable amount of attention to historical accuracy (e.g., that events occur in the same time frame as they occurred in real life, that the relative power, resources, terrain, political climate, etc. is portrayed as it existed in real life, etc.) and detail (that the orders of battle—units, leaders, weapons availability—are represented just as they were in real life, e.g., the Germans Luftwaffe should not have access to the jet powered Me262 in 1940; Gaius Julius Caesar should not be present at the Battle of Cannae in the Second Punic Wars; and the Elves, apart from for Legolas, should not be present at the Battle of Helms Deep from the “Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers,”[10] to name just a few).

Sport readily lends itself to being recreated by historical game simulations. The ability to replay the 1970 Superbowl or the 1985 World Series has immense appeal for sports fans.[11] As a result, several sports games, with sufficient attention to detail, qualify as historical game simulations. Strat-O-Matic Baseball and Dynasty League Baseball both contain such statistical detail on every player, in-depth information on ball parks and weather (all tied to a specific season) that they allow players to replay entire seasons with a heighten sense of statistical (or historical) accuracy. Generally, both wargames and sports games let players recreate real events of history with enough detail to give the player some sense that this is how is happened (or could have happened).[12]

In this regard, Memoir ’44 is more of a historical game simulation than not. How’s that for a definitive answer? I did not intend to be so vacillating[13] on this point, but the analysis of Memoir ’44 is split on the two key elements of historical game simulations: (1) it does recreate a REAL event in history—the Normandy invasion of WWII, however, (2) it does lack the DETAIL associated with most historical game simulations. Sure, it has “144 amazingly detailed army miniatures - including historically accurate infantry, tanks and artillery; 36 Obstacle pieces, 60 illustrated Command cards, 44 Special Terrain tiles and 8 Custom Wooden dice,”[14] but it also relies on a considerable amount of luck (in the form of dice rolling and card draws) that appears to exceed the norm of typical wargame simulations, which successfully limit luck “to the historical uncertainties of combat.”[15] Not to say that that other wargame simulations are without a certain amount of dice rolling (too many to mention) or card handling (e.g., Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage). However, several people find Memoir ’44 to have more of a dice fest feel, ala Risk, and luck driven component than that of using the traditional dice and tables to generate random numbers corresponding to casualties based on odds, as found in several traditional hex/counter wargame simulations.

The true test is not whether Memoir ‘44 simulates the D-Day invasion and subsequent battles (it clearly is a game simulation of the real event), but does it do so with the level of accuracy and attention to detail that an entire genre of wargames have striven to achieve? Again, the answer to this is mixed. Indeed, game reviewers acknowledge that a certain amount of detail and accuracy has been sacrificed to make a simpler and playable game:

The game is very tactical, and while it won’t simulate a World War battle to appease a hardcore war gamer, it will satisfy the majority of players.[16]

Lest one think this is a complicated war game designed for the true grognard, let me assure you that it is not. Indeed, it is quite simple, serving as an excellent introduction to the war gaming field. However, it has shown much wider appeal that that, as the simple mechanisms, easy-to-learn rules and brilliant production values has made it appealing to dedicated gamers, casual gamers and families.[17]

It’s all really a “Beer and Pretzel” affair or, since this game starts off in Normandy, a “Wine and Cheese” rendezvous. Grognards beware: simplicity lies ahead. Either accept this game for what it is or retreat back into a comfortable reading of Advanced Squad Leader rules. Actually, I love war games but I probably don’t fit the definition of a true Grognard though I like to think of myself as an amateur history aficionado. Memoir 44 deals with a simple representation of units, capabilities, and events. It will present you with plenty of strategy and decision making on how to advance in achieving your objective or when to pull back and regroup. There is however plenty of luck present, both in what cards are drawn and whether the dice results are going your way. Sometimes you’re going to have to live with the fact that your Sherman tanks, rolling 4 dice with a bonus at point blank range, couldn’t so much as put a dent in the rear of a sole remaining Panzer they were firing at. Who knows… maybe Oddball was using paint that time (and those were Tigers)! Anyway, much of this luck can be mitigated through smart play (unlike my recent games against my son, where I play the Germans and there’s no question to why they lost the war). But luck is to be expected in a game like this. It’s not about what they could have put into the game, but rather why things were intentionally chosen to be left out. Memoir 44 is not a simulation nor will it recreate all aspects of a given battle or combat situation. Richard Borg’s Command & Colors system was never intended to do that. It does allow for sound principles of war to be applied and provides a reasonable chance for either side to win with an edge going to the better player. Just think of any luck present as the uncertainties of war. Sure, this all sounds pretty general and simplistic but, in reality, this game is targeted at the mass market. It’s meant to appeal to the family gamer as well as the seasoned war gamer. It is even being used as an introductory learning tool in grade schools exposing kids to the history of the enclosed battles. Plus, the WWII theme is much more interesting historically to most people than any other war. (emphasis added)[18]

For my part, as an SPI wargamer from way back, I found M44 to be refreshing, fun and evocative of WWII tactical combat. I would call M44 a game with a WWII theme, not a wargame. There are jarringly unsimulative moments, but they are more than compensated for by the good time you can have playing, not working at, this game.[19]

Even the esteemed[20] Joe Steadman in Episode #8 of the The DiceTower referred to Memoir ’44 as merely a “gateway” game into real wargames for Eurogamers who might find it that even though it has “warish pieces” it is “so random” that other games are “much more realistic.” Even so, the game does go a long way at mimicking the tried and true elements of a historical game simulation with its scenario cards (e.g., Panzer Leader), action cards representing chain of command (e.g., We The People), and the unique skills of the units (e.g., Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader),[21] it just does not have the feel of a real historical simulation. In short, it does not allow players to recreate the Normandy invasion with enough detail to give them a sense that this is how it happened. It simply does not have enough verisimilitude. Hence, my mixed reaction and split response to whether it is a true historical game simulation.

Finally, this brings us to whether Memoir ‘44 a “good” historical game simulation. To answer this we need to explore the very subjective term—“good.” Good, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. One man’s Puerto Rico is another one’s Fluxx; I am not sure what that means, but just go with me. For purposes of this analysis, the term “good” means (1) accurately simulating a real historical event, (2) with a level of detail that will keep a Gronard from laughing out loud, (3) all the while maintaining playability that keeps people coming back for more. In this respect, The Longest Day is a good example of not being a “good” historical game simulation. Did that make any sense? While it more than exceeds the first two criteria, it fails miserably at the third.[22] On the flip side, while most people find Battle Line extremely playable, it is a far cry from being a historical game simulation on par with The Great Battles of Alexander: The Deluxe Edition. So where does Memoir ’44 fall along this continuum? I have to say that it falls just outside of the “sweet spot” of what are considered “good” historical game simulations. Let’s take a look at the chart below:

High

Playability

Low

High

Low

Simulation/Detail/Play Time

In this chart, Rommel in the Desert is closest to the “sweet spot” of being very playable, yet having solid simulation, detail, and a reasonable playing time.[23] But wait, you are asking yourself, “Tom” or “Joe” (as the case may be), “why have I spent the last fifteen minutes (two if you are a speed reader) deciphering this long winded, hyperbole slinging, Memoir ’44 seeking, incorrigible fool’s semi-incoherent, hodge-podge of phrases, parentheticals, run-on sentences, footnotes, ellipses, quotes, and unsupported ramblings, when I could be playing Crocodile Pool Party or ASL (as the case may be)?” . . . no, wait . . . that is not your question, well, maybe it is, but your better question is: “How can a game that this blithering idiot considers barely a historical game simulation be even remotely close to a ‘good’ historical game simulation?” Good question! The answer is three medium sized words: Playability, Playability, Playability!

The strength of Memoir ’44 is not only its playability, but re-playability. The ability to change the map board, use the same plastic miniatures to represent different historical combat units and the myriad of scenarios all lead to a fresh and different playing experience each time. Also, the cards just do not fall the same each game, which leads to a built-in randomness, again adding to new and diverse outcomes.[24] When you add in the fact that most games of Memoir ’44 can be played in under an hour, you have a legitimate contender for a historical game that will be played again, and again, and again.

Memoir ’44 also does something else that lends credence to it being a “good” historical game simulation—it does not change history just to make the game balanced. There are several comments and complaints about Memoir ’44 concerning the unbalanced nature of the scenarios. In my opinion, that’s fine. War is not balanced. Heck, life is not balanced for that matter. And historical game simulations should not be balanced if that is what history dictates. Consider the following excerpt from “The Best of Board Wargaming”:

Take Eric Goldberg’s shatteringly honest note in his Descent on Crete rules:

“Serious students of history will note that the German landing sites and strengths do not exactly correspond with the historical ones. The designer chose to do this for two reasons: one, for the obvious reason of play-balance; but also so that several situations that occurred in the actual battle would be recreated in the game.”

Both these reasons are totally unacceptable and reduce wargaming to abstract counterpushing. If a situation is unbalanced, then the usual device of awarding victory to the player who improves on history (even if his side “loses” in real terms anyway) is preferable to artificial fiddling to improve on reality (give the French in 1940 a few B-52 bomber squadrons and observe how beautifully the situation balances). If the game is inaccurate or historical situations are unlikely to occur, then some important factor has been omitted.[25]

Now, a historical game simulation cannot be so one sided that you will never find a willing lamb for the slaughter . . . I mean . . . an opponent. The game play requires some modicum of balance, but not at the sacrifice of too much realism. In this regard, some of the better historical game simulations recreate events between relatively evenly matched opponents—so they can avoid fiddling too much with history. Maybe this is why there are so many games covering Waterloo, Gettysburg and the Battle of the Bulge. Memoir ’44 captures that balance and provides challenging, yet fun historical scenarios.

All in all, the playability of Memoir ’44 wins out over its historical shortcomings and makes Memoir ’44 a “good” historical game simulation. Although, it is a bit abstract compared to traditional treatments of the Normandy invasion, it does play fast and allows for several key decisions to be made about troop movement, where to attack and how to best utilize the strengths of your forces. In this regard, I believe players will learn more about the actual events of the Normandy invasion by playing several of the Memoir ’44 scenarios (especially the Overlord mega-scenario) than they will setting up and not even completing three rounds of The Longest Day. That, to me, is the difference between a historical game simulation and a “good” historical game simulation.

Conclusion:

Memoir ’44 is a “good” historical game simulation, albeit not perfect and not without criticism. Historical game enthusiasts can do far worse than Memoir ’44, and actually may find it very hard to do better, when you consider its playability. I hope you found my memorandum informative and enjoyable. I truly appreciate your time to review it (five minutes if you are a speed reader). Whether I win or lose this contest, I can rest easy at night knowing that I submitted the entry with the most footnotes, most parenthetical statements, most ellipses, most quotes, and some of the most convoluted arguments ever proposed in an un-ending series of run-on sentences all shrouded in footnotes, parenthetical statements, ellipses, and quotes. Not to mention, but I guess that I am mentioning it, that I may have the only entry with a chart. Also, I seriously doubt anyone else will use the terms “verisimilitude” and “vacillating” (however, dirty that term may seem).[26] All these things should count for something, but maybe not under your rules or on your Ticket to Ride scoring track. Finally, I want to humbly bring to your attention that I referred to several games in this memorandum and by mere coincidence I named at least one game from each your Episode’s Top 10 Game Lists (excluding Episodes 6 and 7, of course). Now that I have done as much damage as I have time for, I must, in the words of Pierre-Auguste Renoir and of the countrymen who call the shores of Normandy home, bid you both fond adieu. All the best and Good Gaming!

Robert Kalajian, Jr.

I think that it IS a simulation because Joe says it's not...and we all know he smells like Rotten Potato Peels (tm)

Robert Wesley

Hello Guys, so here's MY 'entry' for this: "Memoir 44" is NOT a simulation mainly due to its 'title' as NO self-respecting ''Con-Sim'' would 'go' by such! When I'm 'envisioning' THIS, then I'm reminded of certain female companions of note that I have had the GREAT 'pleasure' of making their acquaintances, and then SOME! I mean, couldn't 'they' have arrived upon a more 'appropriate' sounding TITLE? What's next on their 'list'? ''Oprah: the Battle of the recurring Bulges''? Maybe: ''Operation: Market-Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil''? Perhaps: ''OPS-Sicily: Watch out where the HUSKY goes, and doncha EAT that 'Yellow Snow'!''? Even: ''Berlin Bunker Journal: How to avoid those 'pesky' Russkies without losing your perspective in your surroundings!''? C'mon! Just WHO are the 'idjits' that come UP with the likes of such? In a way, then it almost 'seems' like something involving the likes of a ''Barbie'' doll ALL 'dolled up' in her ''stunning Paris fashion 'Resistance Fighter' wear, as she sets about a night on the Town, foiling some nefarious 'Bosche' plan to have everyone strutting about in 'Jack-boots'! How 'uncouth'! ''

Ron Chavez

Is Memoir '44 by Days of Wonder a simulation?

Well from the average board gamers perspective lets take a look. It has terrain, infantry, tanks, artillery, and involves combat. There are terrain modifiers and you have to play "order" cards. Also, each scenario has different strategy that needs to be used in
order to succeed.

This sound like a war game to me.

But if you look deeper you will understand that it is not a simulation. A simulation of war takes Many, Many more variables into
consideration. Supply, morale, leaders, weather, organization, and a whole host of other tangibles. Combat itself is a rather chaotic intense mess. Simulations try to emulate this by using several fire and move phases, which can give each side a chance to react without "waiting" for their turn to shoot!

Even among similar types of units there are vast differences. A generic infantry would have a whole host of values associated in a
simulation deepening on the country, division, and year in which they were formed. Don't even get me started on tanks or air units.

If Ticket to Ride is "thee" game to get your friends and family to start board gaming... then Memoir '44 is "thee" game to get board gamers into war gaming. in my opinion

All in all, Memoir 44 is a very good "Bridge" game to get board gamers to try war games

And it's one that can be easily crossed without prep fire, smoke, defensive fire, advancing fire, morale, or rallying...

Russell DeSpain

Memoir '44 is NOT a simulation because, unlike war, Memoir '44 is fun and enjoyable.

A proper war simulation game should have endless fields of tiny hexes, thousands of counters with arcane symbols and numbers, and hundreds of fiddly and mind-numbing rules.  Such a game, like war, is hell.

Ryan Olsen

Granted, I've only played the game once, but I don't get a simulation feel from Memoir 44.  I really enjoy the game, but it doesn't have the feeling of a real war game.  Unfortunately, this is also the ONLY war game I've ever played, so maybe this is as good a simulation as any, but I have nothing to compare it to.  Hmm...maybe this truly IS a simulation, but because I'm not seeing blood and guts (Thank God for that), I'm not feeling a simulated war.  Maybe I am so desensitized by violence caused by TV & movies, I have no idea what a true war may be.  What was my point again?  Hold on while I go read all this...

Ryan P. Johnson

First of all, this game can't possibly be called a simulation, as the plastic pieces do not have blood reservoirs.  How can one simulate a war time battle with out bleeding soldiers.  A true simulation would include realistic battle damage for both men and armor...  model railroaders simulate with liquid smoke, why not wargames.  To my knowledge the pieces in Memoir also do not shoot actual projectiles.  My son owns Star Wars Attacktix, so I know that this sense of realism can be included.  Heck this
game doesn't even have medics or chaplains, and even my Bucket-O-Army men from 1974 had medics.
Furthermore, there is the absence of any period correct attire for this game...  how can you possibly simulate command of a military force while wearing jeans and a coffee stained polo shirt.  At the least, a true simulation would include combat issue helmets with realistic rank insignias, not to mention at least 5 stars to pin to a collared shirt. As further proof that this game is not a simulation, dare I mention the cards.  Where are the pin-up girls?

All kidding aside, my take is that Memoir '44 does have simulation at its base. I believe it departs from what a Grognard would call a simulation in order to appeal to a broader audience.  I enjoy this game, I also enjoy simulations (I play in scenario paintball games every year,) but I have no desire to do one-arm push-ups with a pair of forceps over a quarter-acre map of Europe.  So for me this argument border's on splitting hairs since Designer Gamers will still want to horn in on Wargames, and Grognards will
still scowl at any one who thinks this game is a simulation.

Scott Udell

Okay, first off my entry for the Memoir '44 contest.  I've heard it said that the only perfect simulation of the real world is the real world itself.  If you're talking about the perfect simulation of a *historic* even, then you're talking about the real world itself at the time of the event which, barring the possibility of time travel, means we can never have a "perfect" simulation of any historic situation--we can only get closer and closer, and that implies a range of possibilities instead of a definitive statement of "this is a simulation."

The Defense Modeling & Simulation Office document DOD 5000.59-M (the 1998 version) defines simulation as "A method for implementing a model over time."  Huh.  Okay, what about a model?  That's defined as "A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process."  Dr. Peter Perla, in his great book "The Art of Wargaming" (highly recommended!) uses definitions much like these, but indicates a simulation can be run again and again and you'll get the same result from it if you give it the same inputs.  He says a wargame, though, is a simulation with human decision making.  DOD 5000.59-M defines a "war game" (note that it's two words, not one, something Perla also discusses) as "A simulation game in which participants seek to achieve a specified military objective given preestablished resources and constraints; for example, a simulaiton in which participants make battlefield decisions and a computer determines the results of those decisions."  (An aside: right above that definition is the definition for "warfare simulation": "A model of warfare or any part of warfare for any purpose (such as analysis or training).")  Since they split "war" and "game" I looked up "game" and got the following definition: "A physical or mental competition in which the participants, called players, seek to achieve some objective within a given set of rules." They cross-reference this with game theory: "The study of situations involving competing interestes, modeled in terms of the strategies, probabilities, actions, gains, and losses of opposing players in a game."  This gets cross-referenced to management game and, interestingly, war game.  So, by looking at their definitions, you could argue that they are saying a simulation and a game can have overlaps, that they can be the same thing (I once had to take--*shudder*--discrete math in school, and I guess they'd say it's a union of two sets).

In work when we're talking about the appropriateness of simulations (wargames) for training, we ask, "what's the training objective?"  Detail that doesn't apply to the training objective, or--worse--that detracts from it, is unnecessary; I've heard my boss argue pursuasively that Risk is a "simulation" for certain very specific training objectives.  So in asking yourself if Memoir '44 is a "simulation" or not, I guess you need to ask what's your simulation objective?  What are you trying to simulation, and to what level?  For example, if I'm trying to simulate full fog-of-war and friction, and that's my key goal (or one of them), even Campaign for North Africa, Tobruk, or--dare I say it?--ASL aren't "simulations" unless played in a double-blind, umpired game.  If that's not my focus, though, and I'm focusing instead on, say, detailed weapons effects simulation, then Tobruk, for example, is a fine simulation, or if I'm simulating the usage of water (taking into account that the Italians need more for their pasta), then CNA is your simulation (I'm using that near-mythical example--I've never actually seen the game out of its box).

So, wrapping it up (you asleep yet?), I'll say that yes, Memoir '44 can be a simulation in some circumstances/uses

SE

Memoir '44 is a simulation! Well, as much as a Boardgame can be one. Any game in which players manipulate units on the board into tactically advantageous terrain or formations in order to increase the chances of winning a situational combat, especially a specific one, is a simulation. The plastic soldiers are especially real in M44, as everyone in WW2 was made of plastic. :robot:

Shana Bertrem

Memoir '44 is definitely a simulation of military conflict. Although the scale is greatly reduced, the units are designed to represent the characteristics of armor, infantry, and artillery in action. The terrain tiles and obstructions are clearly provided to affect the movement and visibility of these units. Even in this reduced scale there are a variety of real-world elements being recreated with in-game consequences.

Second, we must not confuse the depth of detail with the quality or purpose of the simulation. Just because the rules are simplified to encourage playability does not mean that the game is not intended in every aspect to imitate a unit-level military battle. The number of rules or conditional modifiers present may add realism, but versimilitude is not a requirement of a simulation.

Thirdly, the game uses a dynamic scenario for each session. Thus there is no 'generic' play; the parameters for the simulation have to be provided via the scenario (historical or hypothetical) for the game to begin.

There it is: Memoir '44 represents military conflict on a manageable scale. It uses discrete inputs to model different scenarios of outcome. Clearly, a simulation.

Shin Yoo

Why Memoir '44 is NOT a simulation :

1. Joe Steadman says it's not in his BGG comment - this alone will be quite enough, but also...

2. Hexes are too big to qualify - everyone knows that in order to qualify as a simulation, the game has to have a 1" hex map

3. Not enough mumbo-jumbo in the game or rulebook - when you can read the whole rulebook without scratching your head at least 14 times, it's not a simulation

4. Components are too nice - come on, no cardboard counters?

SnoozeFest

M44 is not a simulation because I SAID so! (short answer)

longer answer:

www.webster.com:

 the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another

dictionary.com

 representation of something (sometimes on a smaller scale) [syn: model:  A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics ]

So, despite my initial feelings about this, the word "simulation" seems to imply a close representation. Some simulations are obviously better than others - i.e., some sims do a better job modeling the process of interest. I think M44 is far enough on that spectrum to make it a non-simulation.

Stephen Shaw

I think that historically-based games exist on a continuum of simulation to game.  The more simulation, the less game and conversely, the more game, the less simulation.  If you truly simulate a historical scenario perfectly, there is no game, as you simply repeat history.  Some great games come very close to doing exactly that; however, many great games with a historical setting (El Grande) have a time/place as a setting only, but then the rest of the play is entirely GAME, and therefore are not simulations.  As such, there has to be some (at least potential) deviation from history in order to have some decision making gamer-luvin fun.  So what are the criteria for a good, somewhat accurate simulation that still has gaming elements?

1)  Accurate starting resources/units/abilities that mimic mathematically/statistically

2)  Dynamic in-game development that mimics the timing of history with close accuracy, in terms of events (weather, terrain, encounters) and progression (technology, leadership improvements, etc)

3)  Components (map, bits) that are at least somewhat compelling and evoke the appropriate atmosphere

4)  Victory conditions that match what would have been considered a strategic victory for the respective side

One of the frequent burdens of an accurate simulation is FIDDLY, overly complex rules.  Another (Axis and Allies) potential problem is limited replayability, as starting positions and strengths (and as such, the potential develpoment of the "perfect" stratgey) are static.  With that said, from what I know of Memoir 44, it strikes a pretty good balance between gaming and simulation, but I'm looking forward to winning it to put that to the test!!  ;-)

Steve Barnhardt

Well, I checked out Memoir 44'  and decided that it was a wargame, but so abstract that I cannot consider it simulation.   Tom is correct, it has terrain, units, and all the trappings of a simulation, but that does not make it one.  A counter-argument is that it is simply a highly abstracted simulation, I guess.   I could consider chess to be a simulation by that definition.

I would argue that a wargamer is looking for a simulation to clearly identify units and provide historically accurate assets for a scenario.  I saw one guy get all center cards and not be able to do much, because his units were on the flanks.  A simulation usually allows one to activate what assets they have.   For this reason, I consider most other Card Driven Games to be closer to a game than a good simulation.

I have to agree with Joe regarding this game.  

Ted Cheathem

I thought I should at least enter.  This is not a simulation.  A simulation has a level of detail intended to replicate actual circumstances of the real world.  An excellent example of a simulation is Carrier by Avalon Hill.  In this game it takes the time and detail to move an aircraft from a cargo bay onto the flight deck.  The goal of the simulation is to make the player feel that they are there and managing a level of detail that mimics reality.  Another game that is close to a simulation would be Blackbeard being the life of a pirate.

Memoir, although representing a time in history and scenarios of famous battles, it is not a simulation.  It is a light fun war game.

Ted Kim

Memoir '44 is not a simulation (but is a fun game).
In some scenarios your forces amount to a division or more and in others hardly more an a company, meaning that individual units range from regiments/brigades to platoons. While the mechanics might be arguably appropriate (but simple and abstract) for one particular scale, I don't think it is applicable to the complete range that is being portrayed. The interplay of movement/firepower/range and essential nature of battle is quite different over that range.

Beyond the question of whether you can use the same mechanics for platoons and regiments, there is the question whether essential elements are just not quite right. At a tactical level (say each unit is a platoon or battery), the relative ranges seem wrong. Even though the infantry does have a decreasing chance of hit versus armor, it's quite odd that the infantry has the same range as armor. For example, the American tanks (M4s) have 75mm guns. Should infantry be able to shoot the same distance (not in a simulation)? You might argue that company or battalion level weapons are distributed among the troops, but that more or less amounts only to very few  MGs and light mortars. (Even lighter stuff for paratroopers.) But that even argues for more differentiation in marking the units with the extra weapons. And frankly, infantry should not really be able to affect armor at beyond LATW range (which is probably close assault range in this game).

And then, how about those Shermans vs. Panthers or Tigers. I think ranges really ought to be different at least in a simulation. When you take into account protection factors, some of those German tanks were basically impervious to the Sherman at certain ranges. Yes, sometimes you get an elite marker, but it took more than just 1/3 more Shermans to take on Tigers (witness what the German tank ace Whitman (sp?) did at Normandy).

What about at a higher scale? Well the distances don't really seem to match. Some of those towns are miles apart, but tanks and even infantry can shoot across that distance? At regiment/brigade levels unit size (frontage) may be  larger than your range. But that is not what is portrayed.

Thomas Heaney

Yes, Memoir ‘44 is a “simulation.” Now, how did I arrive at this startling conclusion? Permit me to take you on a tour of my train, er, Sherman Tank of thought.

1) The category of “simulation” isn’t a toggle switch; it is a continuum. The category is not an absolute either/or item wherein a particular game magically falls on one side of this fortress wall or the other. The description or category of simulation has an infinite series of gradations like a rainbow that runs from, say, “Tick Tack Toe” on one end and ASL or Campaign for North Africa at the other and has lots of pretty colors in between.

2) Richard Borg has attempted to build a “simulation” that balances reproducing historical reality with accessibility and fun. Borg declares in his introduction that Memoir is “a unique historical game that allows players to effectively portray stylized WWII battles.” The key word there, I think, is “stylized” – he has reduced innumerable details and variables down to a simplified and standardized form that can be applied to various battles of different sizes and conditions and still use the same pool of unit and terrain types. Most attributes of an armored unit have been abstracted and standardized into a particular form that can be reused in each battle without forcing the players to reinvent the caterpillar-tread.

3) Thus, each battle has a particular map with, again, stylized terrain and units that nevertheless reflect each battle’s historical details.

4) The Command Card system provides a, yup, stylized method of limiting player actions on the battlefield in a manner that produces tension-filled decisions and actions that have historical parallels without getting bogged down in complex rules conditions and exceptions. Commanders always have a very limited set of options on the battlefield at any particular moment, so the cards act as a range of “options” available to any commander-player in the game. The cards operate as a very rough representation of command and control, but it is effective and quick.

Overall, I would conclude that Memoir a stylized simulation of combat in the Second World War that allows players to explore and learn about specific battles in a manner that is fast and fun as well as accessible to a wide audience.

Tod Goff

Memoir '44 is not a simulation.  I would classify it as a Battle Overview.  It doesn't simulate the battles in the scenarios but it does give a great overview of the conditions surrounding each battle, both historically and tactically. 

A simulation would be much more detailed and the outcomes would feel more severe than "remove a figure" or "retreat to the nearest unoccupied hex".

Memoir '44 is a great game though!

Tom Panacoast

To answer this, I will use the tried and true technique of cherry picking
definitions from Webster:

"simulate"
1 : to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive : IMITATE

"simulation"
2 : a sham object : COUNTERFEIT

Based on this iron clad evidence, I declare Memoir 44 to be a Historical Simulation of a War Game.

Not convinced?  How about this additional definition:

"simulation"
3b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device

We all know that War Games are not "subject to direct experimentation" by us Euro Gamers, so Memoir 44 allows us an "examination" of that War Game "problem".

Troy Lawrence

Now on to Memoir...  I’ve not had the opportunity to play Memoir so I’m not speaking from experience. I guess there’s a line to be drawn somewhere, ya or na. But since it attempts to depict actual events (at least I think it does), in a semi realistic way I think it could qualify as a simulation, but taking Joe’s comments into consideration, I think it would probably be a simulation a light side.

Walt O’Hara

The answer is, naturally, "Of couse it is!"

I sense the hand of Joe in this.

Do we have to go around the block on this one more time?  A historical military simulation  presents a model of historical conflict.  A historical military simulation USUALLY  presents a depiction of real-life historical military units moving and fighting in a  terrain depiction that coincides with a real battlefield.  Finally, a historical military  simulation provides a model of how to resolve combats and present the results. 

Doesn't Memoir 44 do ALL of that???

It seems to me that the arguments I've heard stated against Memoir 44 have been specious  at best.  "It doesnt' have a CRT, therefore it isn't a simulation!" "It uses plastic toys,  therefore, it's not a simulation!" "The dice combat system is too simple, it can't be a  wargame!!"

All this babble tells us more about the expectations of certain players rather than what  Memoir 44 actually DOES, which is present a model of several different historical  conflicts on a (admittedly very rough) depiction of historical terrain, with (admittedly,  a very rough) depiction of historical military units.  You may not think the Memoir 44  Overlord scenario can hold a candle to THE LONGEST DAY as an accurate portrayal of the  events of D-Day, and you would probably be right.  That DOES NOT MEAN that the Memoir 44  game isn't simulating those events, it's just using a different scale, mechanic, and  artistic method for displaying the same events.

If I like Chagall and you like Monet, does Chagall cease to be an artist because you don't  like him?  The same mindset applies to different approaches to game design. 

Lastly, remember the first wargame, ever?  Kriegspiele was played enthusiastically by the  German General Staff during the 19th century. Kriegspiele featured simplistic terrain (a  gridwork), generic units meant to depict various national armies in changeable situations  (hmmm.. sounds familiar, doesn't it?).  If some visitor from another time had dared tell  Von Moltke that he was playing with a *toy* or a *game* because it didn't fit the  visitor's notion of a "Proper Conflict Simulation", the visitor would have been whomped up  side his head with a bucket of sauerkraut.  Those 19th century Prussians certainly took  military simulation gaming seriously, as you SHOULD know, Joe.. ahem..

This 'donnybrook' over Memoir 44 is all about *comfort zones*, not definitions.  If the  notion that a generic, geomorphic design using plastic soliders to represent units and  marked dice to resolve combat challenges your comfort zone, feel free to call it something  else-- a "table top game" or "Military themed family game" or even "fred".  But it still  will be a historical simulation, no matter how uncomfortable you might be with that idea.

Whit Janes

Memoir ’44 is a simulation, but not a recreation.  I work in the computer field, specifically in Information Security.  When we look at incidents that we have had to deal with (virus, hack attempt, or email worm, etc), we will perform a recreation.  In a recreation, we try and script without any deviations all events as they occurred chronologically and logically.  Memoir differs from this in the fact that after the initial setup is done, all aspects of the game lend themselves to the players changing the order of real events occurring or the steps taken in response to events occurring.  This fact makes Memoir a simulation.  In our InfoSec simulations, we want the participants to be freeform and do the unexpected to allow us to test all possible and likely scenarios. 

Back to the Dice Tower

---

[1] Disclaimer #1: Please note that I took some liberty with restating the question you posed in Episode #22 of The Dice Tower , which was initially declared as “Why or why not is Memoir ‘44 a simulation?” but then modified to “Is it a historical simulation?” and finally qualified with the assumption that we all think it is a “good” game. By combining all three facets of your statements—simulation, historical simulation and the assumption that it is a good game—I formed the analysis of this memorandum.

[2] Should I be so fortunate to have this entry be selected for broadcast on your podcast (for which I would be quite grateful), I completely recognize that the length and unwieldy nature (a few too many footnotes and parenthetical statements, which oddly enough, are displayed this very footnote within a parenthetical statement) of this memorandum makes it virtually impossible to recite verbatim over the air. Therefore, I have provided this Summary to, well, summarize the contents in a manner more suitable for your listening audience.

[3] Disclaimer #2: The reference to any game, game system or game company in this memorandum should not be considered as an endorsement, critical acclaim (or any acclaim for that matter), commendation, recommendation, favorable review, approval, support or sanction for such game, game system or game company by said memorandum author. Check your FLGS for availability. Your mileage may vary. Figures sold separately. Batteries not included. Please read the fine print for additional disclaimers and other meaningless words which attempt to qualify or disqualify the thoughts of the author. Enjoy.

[4] Whenever you refer to Attack! you must include Attack! Expansion as that is the only way to play this game.

[5] Or, if Joe Steadman is reading this, the disreputable Monopoly. Not to be one to cry over spilt milk, but I did just miss winning the Beowulf contest by adhering to my principles and faith in other gamers that Monopoly was not one of the five worst games of all time. And now that we are on the topic of contests, I just need to mention that in the last contest, I had all the correct answers and even a tagline that you used on the air (quote from Omar Bradley) and still did not win or even get an chance at the dice tower . . . man, that ticks me off! Whew, I feel better now.

[6] Disclaimer #3: Please see Footnote #3 above, partly because it is aptly applied to this game reference, but mostly because, this game has some serious issues. See BGG for further information and enlightenment.

[7] Real and historical are interchangeable for purposes of this memorandum.

[8] Yeah, I had to look up that word too.

[9] “The Complete Book of Wargames” by The Editors of Consumer Guide with Jon Freeman, pages 30-31.

[10] Now wait just a tick . . . Helm’s Deep is not a real historical battle. Sorry, I guess I got a little carried away, but that raises another topic: Can fantasy and sci-fi be the subject of historical game simulations? From the Judge Alito school of thought (for those of you playing at home—a strict constructionist viewpoint), the answer is NO, because they do not simulate a real historical event or period. However, we do know from our earlier examination of the concept of a “game simulation,” Supra . . . what, you don’t know what Supra means . . . see above . . . oh, still unclear, eh . . . drat . . . alright, just start reading from the beginning of the memorandum and you are bound to run into it eventually) that fantasy and sci-fi treatments such as A Game of Thrones (an imitative representation of George Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series) and Avalon Hill’s Dune (an imitative representation of Frank Herbert’s "Dune" series) are, in fact, game simulations (and quite good ones at that—please note that this comment violates Disclaimer #2, Supra . . . aargh . . . I mean, above, and should be considered an exception to the rule of no endorsement, critical acclaim, commendation, recommendation, favorable review, approval, support or sanction for any such game, game system or game company by said memorandum author. Incredible, this is starting to read like ASL rules—“Say it ain’t so Joe?”—I feel compelled to point out the double entendre of referencing “Joe” in regards to ASL, but more importantly, dropping a historical reference to the question asked of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson of the 1919 “Black” Sox, especially in light of the recent World Series win by the White Sox . . . now where were we?) as they attempt to recreate or simulate the events that take place in the worlds created by Mr. Martin and Mr. Herbert, respectively, via a game system.

[11] Especially Kansas City fans who would fine the two immediately referenced events particularly memorable.

[12] What “could have happened” raises another interesting point: Should historical game simulations focus strictly on recreating history or on smoothing some of the realities to allow more balance and playability? For example, should Napoleon lose game of Waterloo, or the Allies win every game of Axis & Allies? If so, then why play the game? This topic is given a little more treatment in the analysis of what is “good” historical simulation, infra . . . oh, come on now . . . infra means “found below.”

[13] Sorry for that . . . but that word just sounds . . . well . . . dirty.

[14] Days of Wonder Press Release on Memoir ’44.

[15] “The Complete Book of Wargames” by The Editors of Consumer Guide with Jon Freeman, page 31.

[16] This review by Tom Vasel appears on BGG and on Tom’s Game Review page on www.thedicetower.com. That wasn’t a shameless plug, was it?

[17] This review by Greg J. Schloesser first appeared in Counter Magazine #26.

[18] This review by Walt Mulder appears on BGG.

[19] This review by Dan Edwards appears on BGG.

[20] Yet, another shameless attempt to ingratiate myself. Sorry, I just can’t help myself—I really want the Memoir ‘44 game package.

[21] The gratuitous references to Advanced Squad Leader have been inserted to test Joe Steadman on his promise not to mention ASL during a podcast. Yet, another reason to have Joe read parts of my entry.

[22] Considering that The Longest Day and Memoir ’44 deal with the some general topic, you will play at least 20 games of Memoir ’44 before you even come close to finishing the campaign scenario for The Longest Day. Trust me, I’ve been there.

[23] Again, see Disclaimer #2 in Footnote #3. I am in no way saying that Rommel in the Desert is the perfect game, but merely posing the point of view that it has a firm command of the balance necessary for a “good” historical game simulation.

[24] On the flip side, this randomness factor also makes a case against Memoir ’44 being a true historical simulation and events just do not happened the way they did in 1944.

[25] “The Best of Board Wargaming,” by Nicholas Palmer, page 41.

[26] These are ripe terms for Beyond Balderdash.