There are two major schools of thought in modern war games design. The oldest can be called the "Gamesmen," and is characterized by the desire to produce playable games first, and realistic simulations only after that has been achieved. Their games are generally abstract and these designers are willing to change historical orders of battle in the interest of play balance. They often concentrate on strategy and doctrines rather than military technology.

The. chief opponents of the "Gamesmen" are the "Simulators," whose best known representatives are the Strategy and Tactics group. In the "Designer's Notes" to FRANCE, 1940, Mr. James Dunnigan says:

"Normally, when designing a game, you can determine the combat strengths of units simply by counting rifles (and making allowances for critical non-material factors also.) After that you can make changes in the combat strengths according to how the game prototype develops. This is known as the 'Letting-the-Game- Design-Itself' technique. The game model really isn't doing that much work."

He also says"Most of the games (or any game of this sort) are played not with two players, but with one."

Now this is a fairly interesting statement. After all, Chess is not usually played by one person. Risk almost never is. Monopoly usually has several players. Miniaturists collect figures as an end in itself, but they generally fight battles with an opponent. Yet, according to the best-known of the "Simulators," war games -- or at any rate the kind of war games put out by S&T -- are played by only one person.

Thus we have the all too familiar phenomenon of the war games addicts who stand around in a circle and admire the latest complex simulation game, then go play Bulge or Stalingrad.

In a recent Panzerfaust several readers complain that they can no longer buy each Avalon Hill game as it is published; they now want to play them first.

The complaint is shared by Panzerfaust editor Don Lowry, who says:

"I readily admit that war games are simulations. But even the most realistic are very poor simulations. What's more important is that they are games. They're played for fun. While realistic simulation of historic forces and events makes up a good part of that fun, it's still the game aspect that is most important. This is why I don't care for most of Jim Dunnigan's games. He admits he doesn't play war games, and it shows. While I deplore the historical inaccuracies of BULGE, I'd a lot rather play it than 1914!"

Lowry has stated the heart of the controversy; but perhaps he retreats too fast. He implies that too much simulation of detail will produce a poor game, and we can all agree. He implies that we cannot, on some level, have both simulation and playable games; and this, I think, is open to question.

To examine the dilemma of simulation vs. playability we will have to range far afield into the study of the art of war. We will have to examine battle, strategy, operations, and tactics, and we may find that these change in different eras. It may be that some periods simulate better than others; some can be gamed and simulated; and some must be abandoned as hopeless.

More Simulation and Psychology

Introduction
What Are We Trying to Simulate?
Strategy
What Can We Simulate?
A History of Operations
Panzerblitz and Jutland