The course is Full Speed Ahead!"
Taking over my new duties of "Simulations Director," I have been asked to define the purposes of this column. My column will review at least one simulation per issue. I will try to stay away from a shotgun approach: i.e., reviewing a group of simulations without depth or intensity. Since it is impossible to review every new simulation that is introduced to the market, this column will try to use several reference points or touch stones in picking and choosing the simulations reviewed.
First of all, I will try to vary the periods the simulations cover, and the companies that manufacture them. I do not have any prejudices against any one company (or so I like to think!). Secondly, I feel that the column should judge a simulation on its level of realism and enjoyment. Thirdly, it should strive to answer the question: is the simulation simply a rehash of old rules on new terrain or is it advancing the "state of the art?"
On this last note I should warn the reader that USN (Simulations Publications, Inc. of New York) is one of my favorite simulations, in spite of its poorly written rules, historical errors, etc. It is one of my favorites because it is enjoyable, but also because it is a real step forward in the "state of the art."
Obviously I do not equally enjoy every period and type of warfare. I enjoy virtually any naval simulation of any period, with special enjoyment attached to the post 1855 period. I enjoy most post-Thirty Years' War situations, but not all simulations. My favorite land period would probably lie between the years 1840 to 1940. I have never found any air game that I've enjoyed with the exception of miniatures.
Goals
Now one may ask: what are the goals of this column? First, this column must not become a one-way street. I encourage outside comments on simulations, reviews, or any other topic. Some of the reviews will be totally or partially "non-house" products. I am less concerned with minor rule errors, tactics to use in playing, and details of that nature than with the "big picture" of a simulation. This brings me to the second point, which is that this magazine is evolving, and the column will evolve too.
Ideally this column will be important in giving its readers a better understanding of what new and different simulations are out there; what ideas game designers are kicking around; and what improvements have been made on various simulations. The column will not define its purpose narrowly, but will comment on other publications, articles, conventions, and whatever else is pertinent to the war gaming world. The reason is quite simple. The mass wargaming community reminds me at times of Major-General Stanley of the Gilbert and Sullivan light opera, The Pirates of Penzance:
- "I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
from Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical. . .
Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform
and tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General. . .
In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin". . .
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at
and when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat,"
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery;
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy. . . "
Historical Tools
To me, simulations should be historical tools. A good simulation should get one to go out and read up on a campaign, battle, or skirmish. Further, the simulation itself should increase your understanding of the situation, handicaps the officers were laboring under, and the terrain. It should teach one why he does not use a frontal assault against machine guns; why tanks do not charge a village liberally defended with A.T. weapons; and why his destroyers do not charge an enemy battle-line in broad daylight except as a tactical diversion.
As T.P. Schweider pointed out in issue #3, "better research means better games." I hope this column will aid in that endeavor.
Realism
Like the Bible, everyone has an opinion about realism and simulations. Granted it is impossible to reproduce a true war simulation (see J. Pournelle's article in issue #3). However, though it is impossible to be perfect, I think we should try. Frankly, I play mainly to learn historical and military lessons, which interests and pleases me. It is precisely for that reason that I no longer play Afrika Korps and simulations like it. It's fun, yes, but one does not learn anything from it except to hate dice! It is hard to see just how far this generation of simulations will go. I think we have made good progress in putting realistic inputs into simulations; e.g. commander units with influence, better victory conditions, inverted units, and dummies. As a friend of mine, Andrew Smith, once put it, "Playability does not conflict with realism, but it certainly conflicts with complex rules." We may never surmount that hurdle, but we should try.
Back to Conflict Number 5 Table of Contents
Back to Conflict List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 by Dana Lombardy
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com