The vast increase in the number of games being published has not been met with an increase in the number of published game analyses and battle reports. This in sometimes blamed on the sheer quantity of games being produced; people are said to be too busy reading rules to learn how to play any game really well. I propose an alternate explanation for the difficulty: too many of the new games, for one reason or another, are not worth learning how to play well.

What games may we look at as successful? I will take particular note of the classic Avalon Hill games Afrika Korps, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Stalingrad, Waterloo and Blitzkrieg, as well as their more recent title Panzerblitz. Despite its excellent sales record, I will not consider Kriegspiel--it appeals to a very different market. We may view these games as successful because of their long life, their general sales, and their popularity (except for Blitzkrieg) in tournaments and PBM play. I will contrast these games with more recent titles from different places.

It is worthwhile to point out that many of my arguments and ideas will be sharply different than those of other game designers. I should note as an-exception some of the recent editorials in Conflict magazine I do agree with some of their editorial comments about wargames as games.

It is perhaps easier to mention things that can be wrong with particular games rather than general principles which lead to good games. The most traditional question is sometimes phrased as "realism vs playability", although neither of these factors, in my opinion, is of critical importance. In particular, neither realism nor playability in the usual sense of the word, seems to distinguish a good game from a bad game. (Furthermore, as I have argued on other occasions, these two factors are not opposites.)

By "realism" players usually mean that the events in the game should in some way correspond to events in reality, as these are seen by the players. This is one of the reasons that miniatures are popular; because one has real terrain, and realistic figurines, and rules with the correct names -- one supposes that one has a realistic game. This is thought to account for the popularity of Panzerblitz, too-the game has a realistic "feel." "Realism" does not necessarily imply that: the game is realistic, Panzerblitz being a good example of this. (The ability of units to move from bush to bush is a trivial difficulty, the elimination of which, I contend, does not make the game substantially more realistic.)

The contrast to "realism" is "playability", which is a much less well-defined word. It most often is used to mean that the rules should not be too long. , Some people in the hobby are more able than others to cope with extremely large number of rules or extremely complicated rules- "playability" is a request that the number of rules be restrained. (A subsidiary distinction needs be made between having large numbers of rules for general play and large numbers of rules covering extremely special cases. Some people are bothered more by needing to learn a lot of rules before they can pclay the game at all, while others are more irritated by the presence of special purpose.rules which only a ply to one or two otherwise undistinguished units.

"Playability" is also a measure of the patience of each player; how long does it take for one's opponent to make a move may also be seen as a measure of what one does with one's time while your opponent is moving. Time is a matter of taste, with some players calling for an average length of five minutes or less (with Perhaps another five minutes for combat resolution etc.) and other players preferring longer times. Patience is to a limited extent dependent on age -- it is easier to got older players to agree to play a game which will last for several sessions, or run more than an hour per move, than it is to get younger players to make the some agreement. (But this is hardly a hard or fast rule; even if it were, absolute time can be less important than subjective time. A half an hour over a 1914 board may be less tiring than 8 minutes waiting for a less experienced player to finish a trivial, clear move in a simpler game)

"Playability" can also be a measure of paperwork and organization. A game can be made more or less playable simply by changing the organization of the tables and worksheets to make them more or less convenient. It can also be a measure of coordination; some people. will be bothered by games in which several processes go on at the same time, especially if these processes take a "substantial" number of turns to complete.

More important than either of these factors, though. is the interest factor. The key question is: "Is this worth playing?" The requirement for this seems to me that each must have something interesting to do during each part/group of turn in the game, and that each side have an even chance to win (at least that each side have some chance to win.)

The most important class of bad games is composed of games which have solutions which are easily found. Once the solution is found, there is not a great deal to do, at least until a "counter- solution" is found. For many games the supply of solutions and counter-solutions is very limited, and play rapidly becomes sterile. The unpleasant experience found locally is that many games become sterile with less than a half-dozen playings (the last few being unsuccessful efforts of exotic sorts to break the solution.)

Another class of uninteresting games are those in which one side or the other does not have anything much to do. Consider the Russian in some of the Moscow Campaign scenarios-all the player has to do is to put out his one-factor delay and railroad units. It is impossible for such a player to counterattack; all he can do to make things interesting is to decide where to set up secondary defense lines. Even though the chances that the Russian will win are excellent (especially in the original version of the game), it is a bit hard to get Russian players.

One can try to look for common factors which identify a game as being especially good or bad. Historical research does not seem to be a major factor (although there is also some question as to whether or not historical research has given us many more realistic games, either).

One factor which seems to be of some I mportance is the game-system used. The successful gamm I mentioned above, and many of the better recent games, such an Verdun, all use the original move-attack scheme, rather than a mere complicated multi-phase system. This may not be an intrinsic property of the phase/ fractional move subtle attack combat scheme--it. may be possible to design enjoyable games which use it--but it seems to be easier to got good games out of the original system.

Much emphasis is put on playtesting games before they come out. It should be observed that there are two general sorts of playtesting arrangements which talk to two different questions. The first type, which has been discussed at very great length in S&T, is intended to detect loopholes in the rules, rule omissions; and points where rules do not appear to give the results intended by the game designer. his is a process similar to debugging a computer program--the designer doesn't always think of everything, and will leave out details of definitions, etc. Some people are much better at saying exactly what they mean than other people are, and rule writing is a point where precision counts.

The second sort of playtesting, which seems to be much less done, is to test rules for their effect on the game. A rule, reasonable by itself, may lead to incredible results when inserted into a specific game. One of the better examples of this was a rule in the original Red Star/White Star game which permitted the American, during the Russian player's turn, to indirect fire with all of his units at each Russian unit trying to withdraw from an American unit's zone of control'. The American then got to fire with everything at each Soviet unit (while during his own tun he could only fire once with each of his units.) This flaw, since corrected, is not an omission in the rules; the difficulty only appears if you try to play the game.

This leads to the observation that the rules read well; this may be true, but a perfectly written set of rules may, still lead to a poor Came. This second type of playtesting is more difficult than the first, since it requires competent players (while even a complete idiot will notice that the rules donit say which side is to set up first.)