I smiled when I saw an article in MWAN 128 by my old friend Andrew Franke, who was bemoaning the fact that his beloved whitecoated Austrians are always being rated "poor" by wargames. In particular, Andrew balked at the notion that he should suffer under a "Poor" commander rating, while his French opponent was always rated "Brilliant." Why can't all general ratings be the same, and let the players "be" the generals, themselves? After all, he argued, if we're really taking over the role of commander-in-chief and testing our wits against our enemies, then the playing field should be leveled accordingly. It's a good question. I'd like to propose a few possible answers. 1. IT'S YER STOOPID STAFF Game designers often point out that a general's command rating is a reflection not just of that man's skill, but also the skill and reliability of his staff. This, of course, can be argued both ways. You could say, "Imagine if the Archduke Charles had a Chief of Staff like Berthier... he'd be rated `Brilliant,' too." Or, you could say, "Commanders have the staffs that they themselves create, therefore you can't separate them. Stoopid is as stoopid does." Either way, the basic logic at work is that the commander's skill is seen as a reflection of the general competence of the men who are charged with executing his orders. If you mess with that, then you might as well be arguing, "Hey, how come my Austrians don't have any Old Guard regiments? That's not fair! If I had been in command, I certainly would have raised some!" 2.YER GUYS MAY BE STOOPID, BUT YOU SURE HAVE A LOT OF THEM... "Quantity vs. Quality" is one of wargaming's favorite scenario types, and it certainly plays out in actual history. We're all fascinated by asymmetrical battles like Marathon or Roarke's Drift. There are many ways to balance an unbalanced game, and one of the most effective is to give an outnumbered side a crucial advantage in command control, intelligence, or the frequency of "luck." There are rewards to be had on either side. One player might love the underdog challenge of the Americans at Midway, with his outnumbered forces but special ability to read his enemy's intentions. The other player might prefer those hordes of Gallic barbarians surging toward Caesar's outnumbered legions. After all, as the old saying goes, "quantity has a quality all its own." (Or, to borrow from the old chip commercial: "Crunch all you like; we'll make more.") Of course, historians often fail to acknowledge that Napoleon won most of his battles because he usually had both quantity and quality. Still, your wargames don't have to give him that sort of break. If, as Wellington said, Napoleon's presence on the battlefield "was worth 40,000 men," then give the Stoopid side an extra 40,000 men! Now let's see if it's as much fun to play Napoleon when you're outnumbered better than 3:2. 3. WHO SEZ YER STOOPID? I have no problem with Andrew's basic request: that we let the players play themselves, not the famous men of history. This sort of arrangement, though, is usually found in games which feature points systems, army lists, or some other kind of balancing mechanism that tries to ensure competitive armies. If you can swallow the arbitrary justice of a points system (I usually can't), then you should be able to create an appendix for it, with points values for the different levels of army and corps commanders, too. Stoopid generals cost you nothing, whereas brilliant generals are very expensive. Thus Andrew can play the brilliant Marshal Androvski, but that big brain will come with a hefty price tag. Like anything else in wargaming, these sorts of variables are only feasible if your gaming buddies like the basic concept. Most gamers have no problem with historical "what-if" scenarios. You can think of this as an historical "what-if' army list. 4.YER SUPPOSED TO BE STOOPID, STOOPID! Sometimes the relative quality of an army is a key part of the scenario, and thus, the challenge of your role commanding it. You may have an incompetent Russian general, drunk and falling out of his saddle, but he's at least had the foresight to order his men to entrench themselves up to their eyeballs. Now, can the brilliant Napoleon find a way to take the works? There's the challenge. A conservative player would probably prefer the entrenched but Stoopid army, while an aggressive, risk-taking player would probably prefer the highquality army with the very difficult mission. CONCLUSION: NAPOLEON CHEATED Napoleon was that guy in the club that everybody hated because he'd massaged the rules to get both brilliant generals, and an army that often outnumbered his foe. I recommend that you kick that little dictator out of the club, and from now on demand that - if you're going to play with "brilliant" versus "stoopid" commanders, that the stoopid side has a decisive advantage in strength, or some other tangible asset, such as entrenchments, better supplies, or what-have-you. We can't all be Napoleon. Back to MWAN # 129 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com