One thing about wargames throughout the years that has quietly nagged me a little is the inconsistent, often puzzling use of "NATO" symbology on the unit counters of many games. The use of these symbols on wargame unit counters, especially the X-in-a-box for infantry and /-and-a-box for cavalry, has become such a tradition that hardly anyone questions their applicability, regardless of the game they appear in.

Even though these symbols are now referred to as "NATO" symbols, I assume they pre-date NATO and go as far back as WWI. Yet they get used for all kinds of periods and theaters prior to the 20th century. What symbols did the Union army use in the 19th century? What symbols did Napoleon or Frederick the Great use?

Interestingly, if you look at old SPI games, you'll notice that they almost always used sword-and-shield silhouettes in their pre-gunpowder-era wargames, not the more "traditional" NATO infantry and cavalry symbols. Why is it appropriate/desireable to use silhouettes for medieval pikemen (infantry) and knights (cavalry) but not for Napoleonic infantry and cavalry[1]?

Even in games covering 20th century conflicts, you often see a mixture of silhouettes and NATO symbols. For some bizarre reason you'll see tank silhouettes representing armored divisions or corps, but the same game will still use the NATO symbol for infantry divisions or corps. Why? What's wrong with a soldier silhouette for infantry? I know that some wargames are more consistent about this, but why are any of them inconsistent?

One argument I can anticipate is that the tank silhouette makes armored units stand out more, but I'm not sure I see why this is important or desireable. The mixture creates a dissonent visual aesthetic that detracts from the pleasure of playing the game (for me)--the "look" of a game is nearly as important to me as its playability. I think that a tank silhouette is distinctive enough from a soldier silhouette that it would both stand out sufficiently and maintain a pleasant, consistent look to the unit counters.

As an amateur DTP wargame designer, the question of good unit counter design comes up often. I try to balance visual appeal with effective information presentation, and I steal ideas from nearly every wargame I see. The inconsistency I often see in unit counter design puzzles me.

A use for mixed style: games in which NATO-symbol units are subject to oneset of movement rules, and silhouette units are subject to a different set of rules. I personally prefer such counters to use a different visual cue than mixed unit symbology. For instance, orienting the unit stats differently (horizontal orientation for units that use one set of movement rules and vertical orientation for units that use the other set of movement rules), or using colored text or colored background bars behind the stats, etc.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to nominate Roger MacGowen to the unofficial rec.games.board Unit Counter Graphic Design Hall of Fame. I invite everyone here to nominate others who they feel are deserving. :-)

[1] I've noticed that most wargames today still use the NATO symbols for Napoleonic infantry and cavalry. Artillery is sometimes represented by the dot-in-a-box and sometimes by a canon silhouette, but in any particular game it is just as likely to be the opposite of the symbology style chosen for infantry and cavalry as it is to match.