Dave Nicholas is currently the editor of Fire & Movement. His knowledge, experience, and position in the industry offers him a unique view of the wargaming community.

GameFix. I'm sure many of our readers would be interested in knowing a little about you. Where did you go to school? What was your life like before Fire & Movement?

Dave: I went to a local, private, Christian high school here in Southern California (which had a wargames club, if you can imagine that) and never had the itch to go to college. Since then I've bummed around, working as a computer service representative, in a stockroom and on a shipping dock, and in a bookstore. I'll admit to being somewhat aimless prior to my current job, which I love.

GF- What got you interested in the hobby and when did it happen?

Dave: When I was twelve or so I saw a copy of the old Avalon Hill standby Midway in a local hobby store while I was looking at plastic models. 1 got my mother to buy it for me, and for several years didn't know or care that there were other games in existence. When I got to high school, there were some other kids there who played Panzerblitz, and I was off and running.

GF- How did you become the editor of Fire &Movement?

Dave: About seven or eight years ago, Iwrote a review of Viceroys and sent it off to the editor of F&M, Jay Selover, unsolicited. This is not a recommended thing to do (then or now) but it worked in my case and I began writing for the magazine. Over the years I've also had articles published in the Wargamer vol. 2, Moves, and S&T When editor John Kisner decided to leave F&M, I threw my hat in the ring as a replacement. Tony Zalewski got the Job on John's recommendation, but Tony and I live relatively close to one another, and he wound up recommending me when he left.

GF.- What is it like to be an editor? Is it all fun and glory?

Dave: Certainly! There are a few minor glitches, such as companies that can't keep up with their production schedules, reviewers who somehow or other think they can ignore editorial guidelines, and so forth. I'm trying to keep abreast of an industry that published about fifty games since I took over the magazine in the summer, but other than that it's real fun.

GF.- What is the biggest improvement you intend to make in the magazine?

Dave. It's no secret that F&M has had a problem with timeliness just about since its inception. I can remember a letter to the editor 10 or 15 years ago where the writer essentially asked, 'Where have you guys been?" The problem hasn't gotten any better recently, and I think readers are losing patience with it (and us). I've been working very hard with the Decision Games people to solve this as quickly and comprehensively as possible.

GF.- How is Fire & Movement different from other similar magazines on the market?

Dave. For one thing we have a better graphics capability. The issue I just finished laying out (actually Callie Cummins lays it out; I just tell her where things need to go) will have four pages of color illustrations of different games, including views of counters and an explanation of a game turn or a particular phase or action. We also have a staff of writers of whom I am really proud, which includes some of the more interesting current designers, a number of active duty officers, and a scattering of professional people (lawyers, bankers, accountants, and so forth). So we're really well equipped to do the job.

GF.- What do you think of the competition these days?

Dave. I assume you are asking about the other gaming magazines on the market. When I was a writer (up until the summer of 1994), 1 paid very little attention to other publications. Since I took over F&M I have attempted to remedy that just to keep up with what's going on.

Of the competitors, I have seen Berg's Review of Games (BROG), David Wood's column in this magazine, Paper Wars, and Zone of Control. BROG has the reputation of being the "yellow journalism" end of game publications, and tries hard to live up to the reputation. I guess if you're Richard Berg, you try hard to generate the controversy because everyone expects it to surround you. Paper Wars is more collector oriented, though they do pay attention to whether the game that you are collecting is worth playing or not. I've always wondered how they pick their topics. Zone of Control is run by John Kisner, a former editor of F&M, and we're pretty good friends. I just saw the first issue, and other than the lack of color illustrations, it's an interesting magazine. The focus is somewhat different, though, leaning more towards the theoretical side of gaming.

GE- What do you think is the biggest mistake wargame magazine editors make?

Dave: Letting their own opinions get in the way of what's in the magazine. Most people have trouble separating their duties as editor from their personal likes and dislikes. I've worked very hard on this personally, and hopefully I'm doing a good job.

GF.- What is your favorite period for wargaming and why?

Dave: I would say World War II, though I'll admit I've never thought of things that way before. There's something about the American Civil War (probably my area of greatest interest outside gaming) that just doesn't translate very well for me when it goes on a game map. So many of the more spectacular events of the Civil War (Stonewall's flank march at Chancellorsville, for instance) that simply can't be recreated on the tactical level without a set of "Idiot" rules that are no fun for the Union (or whoever) to play. World War II, with its mechanized sweep and tremendous scope, is just easier to simulate.

GF.- You've been around the wargaming industry for awhile. How do view the current state of the art?

Dave: I've said publicly that I think we're in the second Golden Age of wargaming, and I really mean that. There was a period there in the mid-80's where everyone was afraid to publish ancients stuff (boring to me, but there's no accounting for some people's tastes) or esoteric topics like the Chaco War. It seems like the whole industry is now in a mad scramble to simulate everything that hasn't been done in the past, or at least not recently.

GF.- What do you think most of the current wargames lack in their designs?

Dave: There are two main problems to my mind. One is that intelligence is not nearly limited enough. This has always been true, and various solutions have been tried over the years, but nothing has really worked well as a standard approach. What the solution to this will be in the long run is anybody's guess. The other problem currently is the unwillingness to publish more complex games when simple designs are less realistic. That's not always true (I've always thought A House Divided was the best strategic Civil War game I'd ever seen), but the current movement seems to be simple or not at all, for the most part.

GF.- Do you think the current run of wargames is too simple, too complicated or just right?

Dave: As you can tell from the above answer, I think we could stand a little more complexity generally. One good thing about this trend toward the small and simple is that it has forced designers to be more creative in their design techniques, which results in some interesting ideas and products.

GF.- There has been some talk in the industry about wargaming rules being too simple. What do you think?

Dave: I'm against the criticism. In general complexity for its own sake rather than for reason is just plain dumb, to my mind. The only objection that I have is that it looks a times like some people are shying away from complexity merely for simplicity's sake, and consider that bad, too. The designer should have an idea of what he wants to illustrate about a battle, and then whatever that takes complex or simple should be in the design

GF.- What is the best wargame on the market today, and why?

Dave: I don't think I have one, because I play so many that I don't have a chance to attach myself to one or another.

GF: What is the worst wargame on the market today, and why?

Dave: Probably some Fresno Games Association (FGA) thing. Why in the world someone would publish a game without even a half-completed rulebook is beyond me.

GF- Certainly the hobby is growing and changing. What do you think the standard game magazine will look like in 5 years?

Dave: That's anybody's guess.

GF: What do you think of the growing trend of the hobby to have a gaming version and non-gaming version of the magazine?

Dave: I presume you're speaking of Command, and rumors that S&T might follow suit. If that helps keep the gaming side of the operation in cookies and milk, more power to them, just so long as a magazine doesn't get "politically correct" or something.

GF: There has been some controversy of late about the size of the gaming magazines. What do you think the size of the ideal magazine should be, and what topics would you include?

Dave: The ideal size of any game (magazine or otherwise) is big enough to do everything the designer wants and fit on your dining room table, hopefully while the manufacturer makes enough of a profit to stay in business. The topics should be anything that the publishers think will sell, and if they're wrong, we'll hear the crash as they fall.

GF.- How do you think computers Will effect the wargaming industry? Do you see computer game aids like Aide De Camp becoming a bigger part of the hobby?

Dave: I'm not sure. I'll admit to not having seen ADC. I'm always explaining to people that for me, a ball-point pen is high technology. I understand the play by electronic mail (PBEM) potential is very good.

GF: What do you think about the concept of an electronic wargaming magazine.

Dave. I've wondered about that, or some thing like it. I have no idea what the potential audience size would be like, or what the graphics capability would be. Interesting idea, though.

GF.- Thanks for answering all the questions. Before we go you should have a free forum to express any opinions or areas we haven't covered. Dave, this is your time.

Dave: The only thing I have to add is that I think that the reports of the death of print wargaming (as opposed to the computer stuff) have been greatly exaggerated. Computer technology has a number of limitations, including obsolescence, bad artificial intelligence (AI), and compatibility that will continue to limit that end of gaming indefinitely. The desktop publishing revolution has had an effect no one anticipated. It is now easier for small companies to produce games that are top of the line graphically. Ironically, instead of killing off the board game industry, computers seem to have saved it for the moment.