Transparency: a Gaming Definition

I don't play that many games anymore. It is not so much a function of interest, but time. Therefore, when the opportunity comes along to sit and play, I'm usually very selective about the game. It is rare that I will elect to play an operational level game.

The gaming experience is ultimately escapism. When I sit before a paper battlefield and cardboard troops, I want to deal with the decision-making inherent in the situation. The rules will either facilitate or get in the way of that experience.

I regularly play Command Deeision with a group of friends locally. CD is a tactical set of miniatures rules for WWII ground combat, published by GDW. Like any game, CD has a few things we quibble over, but when I play the game I think in terms of battlefield tactics. The rules very seldom get in the way. As players, we do not use rules manipulations to accomplish victory. Instead, we apply tactics, proper use of combined arms, etc. CD is what I call a transparent set of rules. In my view, good rules remove themselves from the decision-making process. The game thereby takes on a life of its own, and the players become the vibrant part of the experience.

Operational Failure

Recently, Joe Miranda and I played a game of Avalon Hill's original Battle of the Bulge. To put it mildly, Joe kicked my butt.

Now, I've never claimed to be a particularly good player, but Joe defeated me in a way that left me feeling...well, cheated. I didn't think I'd done anything wrong tactically, but my large panzer units were effectively surrounded and destroyed by units that, in my opinion, didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing it in reality.

My defeat in Bulge resulted from my lack of understanding of the fine points of the rules. That's okay, but not when the rules lack a clear understanding of military reality.

What is Operational?

Now I realize that Bulge is a very primitive game by today's standards. Nevertheless, many of the game's basic concepts are still present even in the latest crop of new designs. This is particularly true of "zones of control" (ZOCs). What it all boils down to is that victory or defeat in most operational level games is achieved by the side that can best manipulate ZOCs.

Never mind the tactical situation, the disposition of forces, and the effective use of firepower. Victory depends on the ability to manage the order of attacks to cut off the escape route of enemy forces. This enables grossly inferior units to eliminate opponents simply because a wide swath of open country does not happen to be available. This approach is so commonplace in today's operational designs that one wonders if designers have ever heard of the fighting withdrawal?

As an amateur historian who has not served in the military, I do not feel entirely qualified to define what the "operational" level commander's primary concerns are. I think it is safe to say, however, that figuring out how to manipulate the enemy's ZOC is not one of them. That is not to say that the ZOC is not useful, only that it has heretofore been too large a factor in any given exchange and deserves re-examination.

Doctrine ought to be the primary determining factor in the decisions and situations of any operational game. Yet it is a greatly neglected element in many designs. At least as far as wars in this century are concerned, the maneuver element is the primary combatant on the battlefield. If the maneuver element is defined as the battalion, as it is in American doctrine, only about 40% of a five-battalion brigade should be committed to an assault, with the remainder held in strategic reserve to exploit any breakthrough.

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Yet how many operational games have you played where you committed the entire force at your disposal upon first contact with the enemy? At that point any semblance of doctrine or orderly maneuver disappears, and play rapidly degenerates into who can surround what first using ZOCs. This is a prime example of rules ceasing to be transparent and becoming a method of manipulation that rewards trickery and punishes attention to fundamental operational concerns.

A New Recipe For Success

Overcoming the primary problems of the operational level combat system and shaping a new game system that more accurately reflects real-life operations represents quite a challenge indeed. Some designers have aban doned ZOCs, and others have even done away with hexes entirely in favor of area movement systems. The debate continues over the usefulness and validity of such changes, and in some cases it is quite heated.

A more radical approach was taken in Borodino from Games USA, in which the areas on the map were deliberately shaped so that a unit could only enter a space if the cardboard counter actually fit inside. A game I am more familiar with and that in my opinion has come the closest to providing satisfying operational coverage is Tide of Fortune from 3W. The general feeling of the game, once you spend the two full days required to figure out the rules, is one where the game becomes an organic system that presents the player with options and assets, while still maintaining a high degree of uncertainty in almost every situation. I know that I may be pretty much alone in this assessment, but despite its procedural shortcomings ToF is still one of the best operational level games I've played. It suffers from having much too steep a learning curve due to its poorly written rules, which of course means that the game will be played by very few people. I remain convinced that those few will greatly benefit from expending the energy required to get into ToF.

Facing the Challenge

When Game Publications Group was in the early stages of formation, we made a decision that GPG would not publish an operational level game in a box or ziplock bag. The reason for that is simple. In the general scheme of things, operational games are almost always less successful than either tactical or strategic level games. The primary reason for this discrepancy is that an operational level game always deals with a specific battle. This alone limits the audience of a particular game to those interested in that battle. However, I think that in general, operational level games are just not very good games.

That does not mean that we've given up entirely on operational games. We will likely publish several in GameFix.

Back to Table of Contents #5
© Copyright 1995 by One Small Step, Inc.