Although Cromwell is their first design to be published by a professional company, Len Kanterman and Doug Bonforte have been very active in wargaming for a number of years. Sometimes their philosophy runs contrary to established S&T, Avalon Hill, and SDC policies. Their criticism is valid, however, for not only do they offer constructive suggestions on how to improve the hobby, but back it up with a well designed wargame. The difference between those who nitpick and those who shape wargaming is the difference between those who merely talk and those who produce.

In his article in Conflict #3, Dr. J.E. Pournelle touched on one of the controversies facing game designers: simulation gamesmanship, otherwise known as Realism versus Playability. This was a big subject several years back, when Jutland and 1914 first came out. Since then, the philosophy of simulation has been largely adopted in game designs, due primarily to the phenomenal rise of Jim Dunnigan's Strategy and Tactics organization. Headed by the designer of the above two games, this organization has become the main source of games for wargames, either under their own auspices or via Avalon Hill (Panzerblitz, France '40).

Unfortunately, S&T's attempt to present historical information through its games has resulted in games that are difficult to play and not very enjoyable. While not all S&T games are difficult (i.e., Borodino, Flying Circus, Winter War), even these games lack something. This "something" is harder to put your finger on, but can be called for lack of a better word, flavor. S&T games lack the excitement, drama, and challenge the old Avalon Hill games had. Their rules may duplicate the mode of warfare at the time, but don't capture the "feeling" of the historical era. With S&T games, a player never rises above being a commander of cardboard units.

To an historian, S&T simulation games are quite satisfying. A hobbyist seeks both information and enjoyment, and a game cannot be considered a success without either of these elements. To a hobbyist, S&T games lack the appeal and "staying power" of the old AH games, and after a cursory examination remain unplayed. As Dr. Pournelle put it, people watch the latest S&T game, then go and play Bulge.

The lack of enjoyment in S&T games is the result of a deficiency on their designers' part in one of the two basic steps of game design. These two steps are basic research and translation of data into game mechanics. While they have done a phenomenal job on the first step, they have fallen down on the second. The mechanics of S&T games make playing them a chore. The challenge in an S&T game is trying to beat the rules, not the other player's strategy.

A few examples are relevant here. S&T has defined, via Feedback responses., that a game of "medium complexity" is Kursk or France '40. These games, which have a burdensome plethora of movement rules and five types of air missions to allocate, reach our maximum tolerance. A game like USN or Bastogne (a "complex" game by their definition) is so complicated that we are unable to even attempt playing it.

Now, we're not suggesting that game designers , in order to put the old AH excitement back into games, should pull the kind of tricks AH did. For example, designers should not bend the Order of Battle (Stalingrad, Bulge), or terrain (the Quatre Bras "ridge"), or ignore relevant aspects of a campaign to avoid complexity. However, it is our belief, based on experiences in our own game designs, that a compromise can be reached. Better translation of data can result in game mechanics that are not only playable but help capture the flavor of the campaign. A whole new aspect of enjoyment is introduced into a game, in the execution of play.

We feel that the guidelines that should be used for playability are those of Bulge. AH employed this level of complexity only in this game, the re-make of D-Day, and in two games that were failures primarily as a result of the situations involved (Blitzkrieg and Guadalcanal). At this juncture, Avalon Hill gave up trying to develop this level of game themselves and called in Dunnigan for Jutland and 1914.

As we stated before, the organization Dunningan assembled abandoned the model of Bulge for games that were more simulations of history and less enjoyable. We feel that a return to the Bulge level of complexity and playability is desirable if designers hope to produce truly enjoyable games again.

Complementing a return to more playable and enjoyable games, we feel a fresh approach is needed in articles written in wargaming magazines. To accompany their historical simulations, S&T stopped writing articles about games and started writing them about history. S&T is no longer a gaming magazine, but a military history magazine with an historical simulation included. This is not intended as a criticism - our impression is that S&T sees itself in this role, and its advertisement, confirm this view. However, as S&T games are not enough for a hobbyist, their magazine is also lacking in this respect.

The key is creativity. While historical articles may be interesting and informative, they really provide nothing more than an intensive excursion to the library would yield. Researching is s scientific skill, with prescribed rules regarding the use of sources. Given proper training, and being able to overcome the foreign language barrier, anyone can do research. The same logic is used by professors on college campuses in assigning those great time-wasters, term papers. All it takes is time and effort to read and summarize what several sources have to say on a topic. The model of the historical article is not limited to S&T; it has been employed by the writers in Conflict and many other gaming magazines as well.

As with game design, we are not suggesting a return to the tricks of the old Avalon Hill, the type of articles in The General (articles that deal with specific tactics to use in a game: the "perfect plan"). What we would like to see in gaming magazines are extensive sets of Designer's Notes and variants, explaining how a particular game was designed and possible alternatives to the designer's approach. Rather than writing an article about the military history of a game, why not write about how this history was translated into the game mechanics? This was experimented with for a brief period in Moves magazine (S&T's complement) with the delightful "Game Profile" articles. Unfortunately, this feature has been dropped from this magazine. Conflict has presented articles accompanying NORAD and Minuteman that attempted to explain at least a few of the rules. These articles stopped short of the comprehensive effort made by Lou Zocchi in explaining Battle of Britain in S&T #13 (at that time, more of a gaming magazine under the direction of Chris Wagner). This kind of all-encompassing article is what we feel is the perfect complement to a game.

Such articles will also help solve the problem of unplayable and unenjoyable games. On the Bulge level , Avalon Hill offered several levels of complexity in rules to be employed (Basic, Tournament, Optional rules); players could pick the level of complexity they wished to play. S&T has ignored the possibility of having a flexible set of rules; the only flexibility in their games is the proliferation of scenarios. In some cases (France '40) the game can be played only through one of these scenarios, attempting an "alternate history," which deprives the game of the historical validity even a hobbyist requires.

Except for a few attempts in Moves, S&T has not explained how a game evolved or why certain rules were chosen. Lacking a flexible set of add-on optional rules to add realism and complexity if desired, S&T games present a player with an all-or-nothing situation. Either he accepts their version, or doses 't play the game. If a player wishes to leave out a certain rrle, he has no basis for deciding how necessary that rule was, what it tries to simulate, and if any other option was present. If he wishes to modify a game, he must ran the risk of throwing out a key factor of the campaign.

To revitalize wargaming out of the simulation doldrums it is presently in, game designing must be made a more dynamic proposal. As anyone who's ever tried designing a game knows, it's never really finished. There are always a few more "finishing touches" that can be added. Instead of being limited to the designers and a few playtesters, this process should be opened up to all gamers. If designers explain how games were designed, players can begin treating ruls as something less than gospel truth. The player is now a passive partner in game design. He can only accept what is offered to him, and he has no real foundation for correcting what he doesn't like. Unless he does enough research to redesign the game (as we have done on occasion), he can't try to correct a situation intelligently. If an author relates. what his interpretation was based on, players will have a guide to creating a better one. It players and designers begin interacting as equals, the hobby will take on a totally new dimension.