"While I deplore the historical inaccuracies of _______, I'd a lot rather play it than 1914," is a comment frequently found in the pages of many popular conflict game publications. 1914 has taken a lot of abuse from playability fans and simplicity people. The game does not stand high in popularity. In a recent survey in S & T 32, 79% of the sample had played 1914 (the high was 85% for Stalingrad) but it was ranked down at number 32 with a rating of only 5.37. It is unfortunate that a game with such realism, quality, and possibilities should be held in such low esteem.

World War I is justly viewed as an abyss of blunders, slaughters, and helplessness compounded by indecisiveness. But it is not justified that all of this should rub off onto 1914. The time covered by the game, 14 August to 30 October, was one of the few periods of fluid movement in the war; a time marked by forced marches, outflanking maneuvers, and inspired combat. This is all present in 1914.

One common criticism of 1914 is that "the game soon bogs down into a stalemate." But isn't that exactly the issue in the game; for one side to achieve stalemate while another side tries to prevent it? The object of this game is not the annihilation of the enemy, but rather how far back he can be held (for the Allies). When the game bogs down to a solid front line it is over for all practical purposes and victory points should be counted.

Instead of a game with a set time limit, 1914 should be seen as a game that limits itself. Players should not be put off by the length of the time-record card or even consider playing the game out to move 39. As soon as there is no longer any appreciable movement the game should end. Unlike the generals who were in charge of the situation, anysensible player can see that as soon as the Allies are able to form a line with enough corps in reserve to replace casualties it is useless to continue.

Seasoned players will admit that it would be a nice game given the above, but what actually happens is that the French mass troops in the north, flood them onto the Belgian plain, and achieve stalemate shortly after the Germans take Liege. Which makes for about a three move game and not much fun for players who just spent 20-30 minutes sorting out pieces on the unit counter chart.

This, I will admit, is a weakness. However, it is a weakness in attitude and not a permanent flaw. Of course, it is possible for the French to set up so that the German offensive will have little or no chance of success, but in doing so, the Allied player is accomplishing something that would have been impossible in the actual campaign.

1914 is an accurate historical model and, as such, is subject to malfunction if history is ignored. The French army of that time was almost totally wedded to the offensive. Cran (guts) and Elan (spirit) were the bywords and considered to be stronger than shells or bullets. In addition, no one of influence in the French GQG believed that the Germans would or could come through Belgium north of Liege. The French staked everything on the offensive a'outrance; it almost finished them on the frontier and finally ended up saving them on the Marne. To set the French up purely defensively and/or to anticipate a strong German push through Belgium is to disregard realities and invalidate the game.

Forget it?

All that "set-ups" of 1914 do is answer the question of a French defensive. And it is answered well: If the French had chosen the defensive, World War I would have ended a lot differently. So after you've played the game that way and seen the inevitable, should you forget it? To do so would be to miss a lot of good gaming.

For, with two simple adjustments, 1914 can again become a game of stimulation and excitement. The first is provided with the game: Simply use Table A-9 in the Battle Manual to determine the French deployment every time instead of only when variation card A-9 is drawn. That way there is no massing on the Belgian border, and you have an historically passable deployment. There are many games that have a pre-determined set-up for one or both sides. With 1914 you have the option of seven different, realistic set-ups (including Plan 17).

The second adjustment comes from SPI's "1914 Revision," which, as shown in the previously mentioned survey, only 17% of the gamers have. The secret of the Revision is that the French are required to launch a minimum of six attacks in each of the first three turns or they automatically lose the game. Also, the Allies may not enter Belgium until two turns after the Germans. This prevents the Allies from prematurely stalemating the game and provides for a much more realistic and playable game. It becomes a clash of large armies on a broad front that demands skill on the part of both players.

Another big complaint about 1914 is the cumbersome step system with all those extra counters and additional set-up time involved. But is it that bad, really? Other games have a step system to reflect gradual losses (including the recently released "Spirit of '76" and S&T's "Franco-Prussian War"). These systems take, on the average, about two minutes extra per turn and give much more realism than the traditional A-elim, Exchange, D-elim.

I've played 1914 with SPI's Revision, which includes a new set of counters with no step system, and greatly prefer the step system because it's more realistic and actually easier than constantly entering whole new units on the board as replacements. By making a special tray or partitioning a small box, the units can be kept permanently sorted out and ready to use. See S&T #19 for directions. Sorting trays of this type would help a lot of games and I'm surprised that they have not been marketed.

For anyone who would like to bring a little living history into his life, I strongly recommend reading Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August along with a solo play of 1914. The book closely parallels the game and really illustrates what is meant when it is said that simulation games are historical models.