Every gathering of wargamers, both formal and informal, miniature or board, will often find the conversation turning to what is the best set of rules for a certain period, and then eventually to what makes a great set of rules. This is soon followed by arguments about what is a great set of wargame rules supposed to do? Is it to be a balanced "Game" or an accurate "Simulation"? Is the primary criterion for a set of rules Playability or Accuracy?
The next stage is usually a thorough trashing of a certain set of rules, or a collected hosannah for the one and only true rules that all men of wise and considered demeanor must play or face excommunication from the society of men. To many gamers a certain religious certainty requires only one true faith.
The fact is that a wargame can be any number of things. It can be a pure game, such as chess, or a simulation with the sole purpose of instruction. It can be as absurdly simple as H.G. Wells' "Little Wars", or as complex as the computer supported pentagon training simulations. Its purpose can be solely entertainment and fun over beer and pretzels, or a severe test of hunger, sleeplessness, and bladder control as many monster games all too frequently become. None are "wrong", but if your goal in gaming is different than the rules designer's goals, you will not enjoy the game.
Games are very like books where every designer, just as an author, will have a style and a viewpoint that is a thematic thread throughout their work. Some designers are attracted strongly to the game aspects of wargames, others prefer the historical simulation. Every set of rules available for the gamer in today's market are well designed and of good value, but just as some reader's prefer mysteries, some non-fiction, and others the classics, so the taste of the gamer may prefer the style of some rules over others.
One way that games have been attempting to warn people of their characteristics are the standard Avalon Hill statements of running time and complexity. Though a laudable effort, it still tells the gamer little more than how long he will be at the table (often underestimated), and how many pages of rules he will have to absorb (Simple=2-3 pages; Complex=10 or more pages.). Is there a way we could measure the designer's philosophy in the matter of Game vrs. Simulation?
If you look at the characteristics of games or simulations, when stated as extremes, I believe the following table may be helpful:
| GAME DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS | ||
|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Game | Simulation |
| Competition | Primary, History secondary | Historical "feel" primary |
| Goal | "Just Win, Baby!" | Satisfaction or Learning |
| Rules | Legalistic, Black & White, Yes/No | Parametric, "Grey", Interactive |
| Intelligence | Total | Limited and Restricted |
| Combat | Open resolution | Umpire resolution |
| Enforcement | Loophole exploitation | Peer pressure |
| Force Balance | Total Balance | often imbalanced |
| Unit Values | Fixed | Variable |
| Chance | Narrow Range | Wide Range |
| Orientation | Result | Process |
| Centered On | Ego | Perceptions |
| Behavior | Gamesmanship (To Win) | Sportsmanship (To Be Fair) |
| Game Parallel | Chess or Boxing | Poker or Craps |
| Lit. Parallel | The Illiad | The Odessey |
Many of the characteristics listed in the chart are self-explanatory, but a few may require additional definition.
Rules that are legalistic attempt to cover all possible occurrences within the game. They also attempt to prohibit certain game choices by outlawing them. Certain choices simply are not allowed. Parametric rules are more like guidelines that may reward certain behavior, units, or game choices, and may punish other behavior, but usually impose fewer "thou shalt not" rulings.
Intelligence does not refer to the player's IQ! It indicates whether you know the position, value, losses, and quality of the enemy forces, or if a "Fog of War" withholds all or some of this information. Most games are total; most simulations are restricted.
Combat is open if all factors that influence the outcome of the combat including unit values, die rolls, odds, etc, are known at the time of resolution by all players. Umpire resolution is just what it says it is; a third disinterested party that determines combat outcomes often using concealed charts and unit values, and relating only limited information, other than the outcome, about the process to the players.
Enforcement is a description of how the rules are enforced. In the legalistic game the players sometimes try to bully the decision by becoming "Barracks Lawyers" and quoting from favorable sections of the "laws". If they can find a loophole they are free to exploit it as long as it follows the letter of the law. At the recent Historicon, Don Featherstone related how in a past WRG ancient game a player with an army of highly maneuverable light infantry was faced with a heavy infantry force behind earthworks. By careful reading of the rules the player determined that if he advanced with his back to the enemy that the rules would force the heavy infantry to charge and leave the earthworks. His light infantry then cut the cumbersome heavies to pieces. Not a shred of history, but great gamesmanship!
At its best, such rule mongering leads to a good laugh: At its worst, vehement shouting matches. In simulations, since the goal is a good experience or a realistic result, the various players will often work it out and enforce a group consensus on the players involved.
Games are by necessity interested in making sure all players have an equal initial chance for victory. This may take the form of both sides getting 12 infantry, 3 cavalry, and two guns, or some form of point system like WRG to enforce rough parity. Simulations are less interested in parity than historical balance, or a scenario that is challenging and fun. The most challenging scenario may be wildly imbalanced as was Jackson's attack at Chancellorsville.
By like token Games usually have fixed values for each type of unit, i.e., All infantry of a certain type have the same value, differing only by the size of the unit. Simulations often have a variable worth assigned to a unit by scenario or in some random manner.
Chance usually has a very narrow range of outcomes in a game. The typical boardgamers like to total each units value and compare it to the CRT very carefully before they "roll the dice". Game players want a very narrow and predictable range of outcomes from any given engagement and often want a level of certainty that few generals ever see. Miniature gamers often plan attacks not in terms of any known military necessity, but solely on the basis of a comparison of numbers and a firm knowledge that the chances for the unexpected are minimized.
The gamer is in the contest for a result; Victory! The simulator is in the contest to learn and/or gain enjoyment from the process. This is a key difference. Garners hate simulations for their "vagueness", Simulators hate Games for their vicious competition that often turns history on its head, such as the backwards charge mentioned above.
Games are centered on rewarding the egos of one set of participants at the expense of their adversaries. Simulations are centered on revealing new perceptions about a period or weaponry to both sides.
Gamesmanship is the watchword of the gamer as he seeks any possible edge over his opponent. Second only to Historical validity, sportsmanship guides the simulator as he strives to create a "fair" and an accurate experience.
The final two characteristics on the table are highly subjective parallels which attempt to make the contract between the design goals more clear. Games are more like chess, simulations are more like poker. Games are like the Illiad with a definitive denouement being the sack of Troy; Simulations are more like the Odyssey where the trip is most of the fun.ls one better than the other? Emphatically no! Each has its rewards and delights, but if a wargamer comes to the table expecting a pure game and gets a simulation; he is disappointed. Likewise a wargamer who wants a high degree of simulation would be less than charmed by the strident competition and barrack's lawyering that are found in some rulesets.
No design is a pure example of the above extremes. Most are a mixture, in varying degrees, of the two. Perhaps the Courier could encourage its readership to rate some of the more popular games for the above characteristics on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being a pure game characteristic and a 5 a pure simulation. A 3 would indicate a "balanced" design. A relatively low score would indicate a "Game" design, a higher score would indicate a "Simulation".
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #58
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1992 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com