Saturday, June 10, 2023

Game Period Choice: A Cluster Analysis

In a previous analysis, wargaming period preference was considered (see: Period Preferences for Wargamers). That analysis examined a selection of attributes that may influence a wargamer's personal period preference.  The attributes under consideration in that study included Age, Primary Interest, Group Size, and Figure Size.  The earlier results relied upon descriptive statistics and counting methods to make inferences.  Today, we move away from descriptive statistics and examine period preference through the lenses of predictive analytics.

Cluster analysis is the tool used for this study.  Simply, cluster analysis constructs a grouping of objects (period preference) so that objects in the same group (cluster) are more similar to each other than to those in other groups.  While earlier analyses counted responses across various categories, this analysis attempts to infer relationships and tendencies between respondents and their top three choices of wargame periods. 

What questions can be answered from this analysis?  For me, a few questions to consider are:
  • Using only gaming period choice, do distinctions between historical and non-historical gamers emerge?
  • Do some game periods tend to cluster together? Which ones?
  • If distinct groups emerge from clustering, are these distinct groups intuitive?
One step in cluster analysis is figuring out an optimal number of clusters.  Using only respondent wargaming period preference from the survey, these data are aggregated and classified using unsupervised machine learning. The result of this classification process is illustrated in Figure 1. Each of the 20 game periods is represented in the dendrogram below.
Figure 1
What does Figure 1 suggest?  The answer depends upon the number of clusters chosen but clear clustering emerges.  What can we infer?  Please read on.

Starting from the right-hand side of the chart and drawing a vertical line down through the first two branches of the dendrogram tree identifies two clusters of game periods (see Figure 2). What does this primary division suggest?
Figure 2
This initial clustering cleanly splits preferred game periods into two, distinct groups. With no ambiguity, the two groups are Historical periods and Non-historical periods.  Well, perhaps a bit of ambiguity.  Pulp clustered into the Fantasy/Sci-Fi classification.  What is "Pulp", really?  Including a broad brush of character-driven adventure gaming, Pulp with Steampunk, Horror, Gangster, Back of Beyond, etc., could easily cross all boundaries.  Survey responses place Pulp among the Non-Historical classifiaction.

Generally, the clustering result illustrates that historical gamers tend to stick to other historical periods and non-historical gamers tend to do similarly.  Remember from primary preference studies in the past, there is cross-over between historical and non-historical period preference but generally, clustering shows a clear distinction between the two genres.  A reasonable result taken at a high level.  What if we want to see more granularity instead of the very high-level look? We move the vertical bar to the left and cut across the dendrogram a second time.

The next clustering solution as we move from right to left, crosses three branches as shown in Figure 3. What is this three-cluster solution?
Figure 3
The three-cluster solution keeps Non-historicals intact but bifurcates historicals into two components. I label this break-out to historicals as Modern and Ancient.  Drilling down, this clustering solution may cause some head-scratching for some as Pike & Shotte clusters with the "traditional" Ancients periods of Ancients, Medievals, Dark Ages.  Analysis of the survey suggests that Ancients wargamers and Pike & Shotte wargamers may have much in common.  

Note that the dendrogram illustrates a distance between Pike & Shotte wargamers to gamers in other periods.  Not only is Pike & Shotte separate and distinct from Modern but there is separation to the other Ancients periods. Still, gamers find wargaming Pike & Shotte more closely allied with Ancients than gunpowder dominated ways of war.  Examining the dendrogram more closely, notice that Pike & Shotte does not separate from the "Ancients" group until the nine-cluster solution is reached.  A nine-cluster solution is very deep into the pruning process and suggests a strong tie between Ancients and Pike & Shotte.

What happens to the clustering solution as we move from the three to five-cluster dendrogram?
Figure 4
In a five-cluster solution (Figure 4), Non-Historicals and Ancients Historicals remain unchanged. The Moderns cluster group, Post-1700, is split into three parts. The three new clusters form the Horse & Musket Historicals, Hollywood, and Modern Historicals. Of course, these are general names I give to each group for my own purposes.  Other naming conventions are possible.

I could continue crawling out on the branches of the dendrogram tree, pruning along the way, but for now, I stop at the five-cluster solution.

What do we discover from this exercise of aggregating the 10,892 survey responses from the 2022 survey?  By considering only respondent period choice, the analysis produces some interesting and hopefully logical tendencies as responses are grouped by wargaming period preference.

Keep in mind that these groupings, wherever pruned, are brought to light by simply examining respondent choices in game period and using the tools of machine learning.  Notice, once again, the clear and early distinction between non-historical and historical game periods using no more input than period preference.

Fascinating result.

While this cluster analysis presents interesting and intuitive results, I wonder if our friends in the Pike & Shotte period ought to be claimed by the Ancients wargamers as one of their own?

49 comments:

  1. That is very interesting, thanks very much for posting. That 'Pike & Shot' period is fascinating, since it covers both Flodden & Neerwinden, say. So I am wondering if the result is masking the fact that the Pike & Shot period is just not as coherent a period conceptually as some of the others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have similar thoughts. I was not thinking so much in terms of coherency but you make a good point and I see that point of view. My train of thought followed the path of P&S as a transitional period of warfare with elements of both "before" and "after."

      You are welcome! Glad you found this work interesting.

      Delete
    2. One more thing: I think I am quite surprised by the emergence of a distinct 'Hollywood' cluster. This might be a personal thing in that I am not sure I have met many gamers who focus on those games primarily - although I think Pete Berry of Baccus 6mm (!) might have specialized in them at one point, maybe, on the UK show circuit. Anyway, I am really interested in how this particular cluster forms (is it equidistant from non-Historicals and Moderns, for example?)

      Delete
    3. From memory, I recall both of the periods in the Hollywood cluster are relatively low counts compared to other game periods. Perhaps they are only third or even second choices among the main historical periods. I will need to dive a bit deeper into the data to confirm but relative frequency can make a difference.

      Delete
  2. The five-cluster solution looks instantly recognisable to me. I can see the Pike and Shotte being more closely related to Ancients than Horse and Musket. In our case it is because we play DBMM for Ancients and another Phil Barker set, DBR, for Pike and Shotte, and there is quite a bit of overlap between these rule sets and the supporting army lists. I like the 'Hollywood' classification and think it sums up that grouping of games nicely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of us recognize the five-cluster solution. From survey responses and cluster analysis, P&S certainly seem to have more commonality with Ancients and Horse & Musket. Interesting observation that a common stable of rules could drive this association. Good insight, Lawrence!

      Delete
    2. I think the association between Ancients and Pike and Shot is entirely to be expected. In part, Pike and shot (Early modern Warfare) is still in transition to "modern", with the role of gunpowder weapons steadily increasing until the abandonment of the Pike. For this reason, most Pike and Shot rules are more closely related to Ancient rules sets than Horse and Musket (DBM/DBR, Impetus/Impetus Baroque, To the Strongest/For King and Parliament, Hail Caesar/Pike and Shotte (of course in that case there is Black Powder on the contiunum as well), WRG Ancient/WRG Renaissance (Gush), and so on. It is much easier to add gunpowder weapoms to Ancient rules, than a plethora of melee weapons and tactics to a Horse and Musket set!

      Myself, I cluster into the "Hisitoricals - no Kahiki" aggregation! :-)

      Delete
    3. Points well made, Peter. Thank you!

      "Historicals - No khaki" Got it!

      Delete
  3. Amended after drinking coffee!

    A very visual categorisation when displayed like that. In some respects Wargames Research Group conditioned a generation to see the Ancient / Medieval period to be combined and to sit in a 3000 BC to 1485 AD setting, which of course excludes Pike & Shot. Old school would have P&S bound up within Renaissance (by name and by nature).

    Interestingly, the Power House that is Warlord Games did Hail Caesar to exclude late medieval and then did Pike & Shotte to also not include late medieval …. So where was (say) Wars of the Roses go?

    That has been dealt with now by the new second edition of Hail Ceasar, which includes Wars of the Roses, though needing some special rules.

    If one has to put Pike & Shot somewhere, it is arguably closer to late medieval (which has its own awkwardness being in an ancients set) than it is to horse & musket, yet is it seemingly different enough to justify it’s own attention, which has been the approach of both WRG and Warlord Games, - so is the clustering producing an anomaly?

    I have never really thought about it until this post, but as far as clustering is concerned, perhaps the two awkward children of our wargaming categories, Wars of the Roses (incl. continental wars) and Pike & Shot, warrant being in their own cluster - could the data be interpreted in such a way that would accommodate that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arguably closer to Late Medieval than to Horse & Musket is supported by the cluster analysis. Can the results produce anomalies when they, themselves, are data-driven rather than arbitrary dates/taxonomies plucked from air?

      Interesting idea to combine WotR with Pike & Shotte as one class, itself. Burgundian Wars would fall within this class too. Perhaps, Medieval ought to stop at 1453? Would you not classify WotR as Late Medieval? Could it be considered Renaissance? Good questions with much to explore.

      As for interpretting the data and cluster analysis, the cluster with Pike & Shotte suggests that those preferring Ancients, Dark Ages, Medieval, have a tendency to also prefer pike & shotte as a distant choice.

      Delete
    2. I have always classed WotR as late medieval, but on thinking about it, perhaps it isn’t.

      It will be interesting to see what the impact of Epic ECW will have on next years figure, as it will be a very big 2023 seller and it carries its own ruleset.

      Delete
    3. Do you reckon Epic ECW figures have become a big seller? What size/scale are the figures? 12.5mm? Perhaps a new figure size/scale choice is warranted in the survey?

      Delete
    4. Officially they are 13.5mm, but the napoleonics are slightly bigger than the ACW and in truth comfortably sit at what we might regard good old fashion ‘true’ 15mm.

      I know the Napoleonics were a huge seller and that the British starter box was their top performer of last year, but I am not so sure how the ECW / 30 YW has done as a stand alone product and what that means for the Epic ‘adventure’. I am likely seeing Warlord next week so had intended to ask.

      Delete
  4. Interesting treatment of eras, the place for P&S rules perhaps is as Norm indicated, by itself and maybe WOTR included in place of either forward or backward in time groupings. Such a lot of changes from earlier periods in organization, use of gunpowder, drill, siege tactics, oh dear the list gets tedious.
    Personally, the pre gunpowder era is not a period I game, the Pike and Shot era holds a lot more interest. I guess you buy your ticket, you takes your chances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe, results do offer up some points to ponder. How would you reclassify the periods found in the survey to a new taxonomy that would fit your criteria? Separate out WotR/Burgundian Wars? What is rationale for doing so? Is WotR a step away from Late Medieval and not quite to pike & shotte?

      Delete
  5. As always, Jonathan, thanks for all your efforts in making this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. looking at the 5 cluster solution, I can definitely see myself in the Horse and Musket Historicals. Like others the Pike and Shot period is quite a broad spectrum in its own right, A Thirty Years war game will play much differently from say a game in the period of Flodden. Not really sure how it fits, very much a transition period

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Neil, that pike & shotte seems transitional in nature. Perhaps this transition is a Renaissance in warfare as well. How do you suggest tackling this issue of where to fit different periods and how?

      Delete
    2. For me I'd probably split off the High Medieval / Early Renaissance to say the 30YW / ECW

      Delete
    3. Good! Which wars fit into your "High Medieval" group?

      Delete
    4. Battles like Flodden and the Italian Wars

      Delete
  7. The 5 cluster table does make things more comprehensible, well it certainly does for me! I fir very much into the H&M period with of course the exception of my WWII games.

    For me I always think of P&S as kicking off with the 30YW and most certainly the ECW. Anything before that is not P&S to me. As Norm has pointed out, there is a bit of a grey area from where late Medievals finish and P&S starts. So the Italian Wars and WotR sit between the two periods sort of on their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is grey area, for sure. If pike & shot kicked off with the 30YW, where do you place the French Wars of Religion?

      Another vote for combining WotR and Italian Wars (and Renaissance) into their own class. We make progress!

      Delete
    2. You could easily cluster the HYW, Swiss/Burgundian Wars, Hussite Rwebellion, WotR, Great Italian Wars, and the French Wars of Religion as Late Medieval/Renaissance; all have at least some gunpowder weapons, but before it becomes the dominant factor in warfare system) . ECW/TYW and some other conflicts (The Deluge) would be more Pike and Shot.

      Delete
    3. This would be a useful and descriptive grouping too!

      Delete
  8. In terms of answering where Pike and Shot lies, I would reference the book I read recently ...Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World 1500 - 1763.
    This starts with the Italian Wars, arquebuses and Spanish tercios etc....it dies NOT include WotR.
    To me, WotR is definitely and firmly in the late Middle Ages...whereas pike and shot, which I would contend starts with the Italian Wars, landesknechts and the Swiss pike blocks etc, is the Renaissance, and the start of the post Medieval world.
    Hence, even if the cluster preference suggest more players of ancient and medieval periods play "up" into Pike and Shot than Horse and Musket aficionados play"down" into it, I would dispute that Pike and Shot belongs with the Ancient and Medieval classification....to me, it's early Horse and Musket, for sure!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good! We make two steps forward and one step back! I agree that Italian Wars are pike & shot and like you, am uncomfortable lumping WotR with Italian Wars. If the year 1500 represents the division between Medieval (Late) and Pike & Shot, where do you plunk the Burgundian Wars?

      Delete
    2. Lol....I know exactly ZERO about the Burgundian Wars Jon....so I have no opinion on where they should be! If the happened before 1500, medieval, if after, Renaissance...although even that number is a bit too hard, as I would not classify Columbus etc and the explorers such as Magellan as being medieval, even though he "discovered " America in 1492....!

      Delete
  9. that was a fun brief read, though it took me a little while to wrap my head around it. The 5 cluster diagram does an excellent job of grouping 'similar' types of games / genres. What is interesting to me is that I have miniature collections and rules for ALL the clusters. Doubt that I am the only one. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too brief? I suppose compared to the Young's Branch BatRep this is very brief.

      You are not alone in having collections in all clusters. Some have collections in almost all of the 20 periods listed!

      Delete
    2. Besides, most of the interesting bits are surfaced within the comments. The analysis is simply a foundation from which to build.

      Delete
  10. As always an interesting post, I'm with Keith the Italian wars are the first pike and shot wars and the war of the Roses one of the last high medieval, if I had to make a choice which is pretty much what warlord have done, of course in a transitional period you will have anomalies like Flodden when a recognisably pike and shot army is defeated by essentially a late medieval army, nothing is ever black and white more shades of grey!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iain, pleased to see that these analyses continue to offer something of interest. Things are rarely black and white but seeing you make the breakpoint between WotR and Italian Wars makes sense.

      Delete
  11. A very interesting post Jonathan! I would definitely place myself in the H&M cluster even though - like Stew - my collection spills into other clusters. Followed the P&S debate with interest - a grey area indeed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, happy you found the topic of interest. What to do with Pike & Shot? That is the question.

      Delete
  12. I'm a little surprised there wasn't a clustering solution where ancients and/or medievals group with fantasy, or science fiction with moderns. I wonder if you'd see different relationships if you split skirmishes and massed battles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norman! You pose an interesting question. If the data are subset by game type (Skirmish, Big Battles, etc.), we might, indeed, see different clustering outcomes. Are you more interested in the skirmish side of this analysis or Big Battles?

      Delete
  13. Interesting analysis Jon sadly beyond my simple view on life and the universe. I gave up maths way back. I’m going to use your list though to check which period I haven’t got and which ones I need to start collecting to get the full range. Do you have all 20 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’ll probably be a ‘yes’ Matt!

      Delete
    2. At least the results have some value! No, I don’t have all 20 periods.

      Delete
  14. That took me a while to work out, your workings out Jonathan. It did leave me scratching my head at times.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interesting, very interesting. Pike&Shot seems to be a nebulous term at best...

    I do not remember if the survey broke down naval gaming into similar groupings. I suspect that there is much more cross-fertilisation in the naval community than seen in their land-based counterparts. And air games are locked into one cluster I expect, if they were to focus on only that genre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pike & Shot seems to be a fuzzy term and time. It certainly requires some more thought.

      To get at the naval aspects similarly, we would need to combine period preference and figure preference (ships) unless focus was solely on Age of Sail/Pirates.

      Delete
  16. Late to the party, but I love these analysis posts, so wanted to make sure I expressed my appreciation. Not that I don't love a good AAR or a painting update, but these posts really elevate our thinking about the hobby.

    For what it's worth, and I may be an outlier here, but the three cluster solution maps to how I think about the hobby. All of my historical collections are post-1700 - and the rest even those with ostensibly Medieval and Ancients figures in them - are fantasy or science fiction. I don't know if this is generational (I'm 51) or related to when I started wargaming (early 2000s)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oops, I clicked publish before I was done! and I meant to end with "or just an idiosyncratic "me" thing."

      Delete
    2. Thank you, John! It is never too late to weigh into the discussion and certainly never too late to let me know you enjoyed the topic and analysis!

      Delete