I believe it was Voltaire who said, "there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come." This is stating the case a little strong but would seem to sum up the popularity of the wargaming hobby today.

It is a trend which would seem to defy all logic when you consider the anti-war sentiments of youth today unless perhaps one concludes that war games are really antiwar! Anti-war in the sense that wargames satisfy what appears to be an infectious malaise in men -- a love of war -- without any of the nasty blood and gore that goes along with it. In short, wargames satisfy the subconscious, baser instincts without the guilt hangups.

Yet it seems safer to argue (not to mention wiser) that the increasing popularity of wargames is the result of a better educated market, with more money and time-to spend, and people are attracted to these games because they amuse, they challenge, and they appease a relentless search by some to be involved in something different.

Whatever the motive our company is seeking to fill the need by publishing what we feel are better games. Our company began in the minds of three frustrated Avalon Hill fans two years ago who lamented the good old "Afrika Korps", "Waterloo" and "Stalingrad" days of yore. The idea spread to several more people but sadly, as is often the case, enthusiasm warted in direct proportion to absolute commitment.

It took one year to bring our first game to the market. Apart from the obvious financial problems inherent in publishing a game, we found ourselves off on wide tangents and ego trips and the initial result was a game that stunk. It was simply unplayable including such goodies as Tide Tables and Moon Phase Tables - data from which a player was supposed to determine the best time to launch amphibious operations, and so on. Gradually a process of simplification occurred until finally we had a game that bore absolutely no resemblance to what we began with.

The reasons behind the design of our games is much too complex and probably could not be told anyway. Perhaps our philosophy on game design will help.

This philosophy is simple. First, and most important, games must be playable. Historical accuracy to us is a poor second. Naturally, this position implies that many liberties with history must be taken but the result in our opinion is better. Avalon Hill players would seem to crave the opposite judging from the latest crop of AH games.

Secondly, games should be short but complex. Now this in most cases is a mutually exclusive goal. Complexity is almost always measured in terms of the complexity of the rules. In turn a game becomes very time consuming and often unplayable if not downright boring. We pondered this problem for some time and came to a radical conclusion. Complexity need not be measured in terms of rules and logistics - it could be measured in terms of player involvement in the game. This was a whole new ballgame and we were off and running.

To illustrate what we mean, consider this. Until now games had tended to put players in the role of God. They could see all, they knew all, and they could move all with no apparent concern for the fog of war and limited intelligence. (Attempts to add these features to AH games was simply impossible as "1914" commemorates.) The decision to incorporate these features into our games was taken which brought us to our counter design (its advantages in step reduction and hidden strength are obvious), simultaneous movement, secret deployment, our movement system (simulates the difficulty of coordinating the movement of dispersed forces, etc.) and so on. The net result we arrived at was a game that was really very simple but a game that created more tension, decision making, risk, and attention to time than AH games ever achieve. This is our definition of complexity.

As to the future of wargaming the trend is fairly clear, The hobby seems to break down into three classifications: miniatures, simulations, and games. There is certainly room for all three areas, but we believe the latter classification has the greatest potential. It is also the area of greatest challenge because it is far easier to design a complex simulation than a good playable game.

The Future of Wargaming Comments from Five Wargame Publishers

Donald Greenwood, Avalon Hill
John Hill, The Conflict Game Company
Dana Lombardy, Simulations Design Corporation
T. T. Dalgliesh, Gamma Two Games, Ltd.
Don Lowry, Guidon Games