I recently purchased Beyond The Urals and Operation Kremlin; both from Decision Games, and each designed by Ty Bomba. Subsequently, I read commentary by Mister Bomba - in Fire & Movement, I think - about the lack of enthusiasm many gamers have toward games that deal with other-than-factual subjects. He cited poor receptiveness in the minds of more traditional wargamers towards alternate history games; nnd often lackluster sales of such games.

Beyond The Urals, in brief, deals with the hypothesis that Germany, having destroyed the bulk of the Red Army in their initial 1941 invasion, must now deal with the last remaining reserves of Soviet strength and Red industrial capacity.

Operation Kremlin concerns the 'what if' of Germany driving hard for Moscow in 1942 rather than kicking off 'Operation Blue', as they did historically.

I enjoy both, and am sorry for gamers who refuse to try them. True, there are some alternate history subjects that border on the absurd; and some that wholeheartedly cross into it ( Custer with helicopter gunships comes to mind ). But when a game covers what genuinely might have been, but wasn't - for one or two small reasons - I feel that a true student of history and warfare should open-mindedly give it a try. War is, after all, an exercise in Chance, Opportunity, Judgement, Initiative, Insight, Daring, and Error. In short, many actual outcomes have hinged on nothing more than sheer Luck!

I really don't understand the debate. Whether or not they choose to acknowledge it, all wargamers play alternate history games. There is simply no other type of wargame in existence. To wit - if your American paratroopers are wiped out at Bastogne, you've just played an alternate history game. Your East Front game doesn't feature some type of harsh 'Stand-Fast/Hold' order from Hitler? Then it is alternate history Gamers don't like 'No Retreat' rules, so most game publishers give in and thus sacrifice realism for 'playability'. If a game holds near-equal play balance for both sides, chances are it has deviated away from fact. Victory conditions may color the game more so than the situation that faced genuine commanders.

Consider - if you knew, in advance, each move you and your opponent would make; the exact outcome of every battle or event; would it still interest you to play? Wargame rules are so complex, to use wargames as studies would be grossly inefficient in comparison to simply reading a book. And yet it is just that same narrow focus that adherents to wargame 'realism' would have you restricted to.

Wargames are wonderful tools for developing young leaders; for modeling events and outcomes and indicating probabilities. For learning more about past events; and simulating command problems. But they will never be as accurate and historically correct as some gamers would have you believe. They can't be. There are too many tangibles that a manmade creation just cannot replicate. They can be close - and that's all. My advice: Just play and enjoy them; and don't take them (or yourselves!) too seriously.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com