"If an historical painting is not accurate, then it is worthless as both art and an investment." --Don Troiani, Military Artist. "Medicine and surgery are as much an art as they are a science." --Dr. Charles Barnard, after performing the first heart transplant in 1967. "Genetic Research is an exact science, but it's also an art." --Dr. Francis Crick, of Watson and Crick, the discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA. Of course, game design is not a science. It is an art, always has been and always will be. However, If you're assuming, because of this that wargames can't be accurate or precise-or even simulations-then read on. You've just misunderstood critical aspects of both art and science-and by extension, the art and craft of wargame design. One of the reasons that Crick and Barnard can say that there is art in scientific endeavors is because art can be, and at times needs to be, accurate and precise. The two also believe that even in the hardest of sciences, there is a need for artistic self-expression. The idea that art is nothing more than free, uninhibited personal expression, while science is the total absence of it, is an extremely simplistic view and patently untrue. So, if someone says art can be accurate, don't immediately assume they're selling `scientific wargaming.' Yes, wargame design is an art and not a science, but don't swallow the old bugaboo that this means wargame design can never be historically accurate or exacting, so they can never be simulations. Such a notion doesn't help the craft of game or simulation design one bit. ACCURATE ART All art forms have rules, technical terms, and design concepts that guide artistic practice. Art has a technical side that supports self-expression and `powerful art.' This technology is often precise, such as how to represent perspective and depth on a flat surface. This doesn't dictate what constitutes `good art;' it helps analyze what constitutes' effective art'-And what constitutes `effective art' is completely dependent on the goals of the artist. A number of folks admire Don Troiani's military paintings of the Civil War, and some don't. It's a matter of personal taste. The people who do like Don's work tend to appreciate the historical accuracy in his paintings. This historical accuracy certainly affects sales. However, whether the paintings are popular or not has nothing to do with how historically accurate they are. Historical accuracy is simply one of his goals for his art, and it has to be documented regardless of the popularity of his paintings. However, to create an historically accurate painting, Don wasn't forced to follow some universal "Civil War Painting Template" nor did he have to forsake personal expression. And when he insists on the historical accuracy for his paintings, it doesn't keep his work from being art. There are a wide variety of art forms in painting: Abstract, Post-Impressionism, Cubist, and Representational art, etc. etc. None are better or worse than the others and each form has it's own unique qualities. All have technical aspects which can be very difficult to resolve in creating effective art. The fact that art is very personal and each individual enjoys the art that `feels right' doesn't make art less technical or negate the value of discrete schools of art or even dictate the artist's purposes for painting a particular piece. As an art, wargame design enjoys these same traits. 'ACCURATE' ART IS A CHOICE, NOT A REQUIREMENT However, almost all historical wargame designers make the claim that their designs are, like Don Troiani's paintings, representational: they state their creations accurately represent history in some fashion. To `accurately represent history,' Don Troiani had to be precise, not only in composition, lighting, and color, but in detailing the human figure and the terrain. The uniforms and equipment had to be exact in every detail, and that detail is based on written history and actual Civil War artifacts. The value of his creation in large part rests on how `precisely' he does this-why? Because he believes that this is the ONLY true art? No. Because someone told him he had to paint historically accurate art? No. Because he decided that it would be historically accurate. It was his decision to paint historical events as realistically and accurately as possible. And of course, he is ready to support his decision by documenting that precision. Artists paint for very different reasons. Picasso painted war too. Picasso's Guernica depicts not only the horrors of a particular event in the Spanish Civil War, but of war in general. It is powerfully visceral, but it's not representational. Why can I make such a `judgment' about his art? Because Picasso was very clear about his artistic intentions, and because his work achieves them using particular techniques not found in representational art. Picasso obviously chose abstract techniques over the `realistic' as the way to best achieve his artistic goals-even though he was extremely proficient at both. Whether you like Guernica or not, it is easy to see what technical choices were made. And although he chose abstraction, Picasso still employed a number of the same technical principles Don does in creating his compositions. The differences in Picasso's and Don's approaches don't make their paintings good or bad art. That is just personal opinion. However, such opinions are influenced by the artist's goals. Most people will appreciate Guernica for very different reasons than those who enjoy Don's "The Southern Cross. " As an art, wargame designs demonstrate these same kinds of differences. Richard Borg's BattleCry and now his Memoirs of '44 are not representational, but abstract, `stylized' to use his own words. Why? Because he never intended his games to be `historically accurate.' He never claims for his games what John Hill does for his design: "Johnny Reb will present you with all the problems of commanding formed bodies of men in the midst of the maelstrom of battle." Or Arty Conliffe: "Armati is a complete rules system that simulates the battlefield tactics of Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance armies." Or Sam Mustafa: "Grande Armee is a set of rules by which players can use miniature figures of any size or basing system to recreate the famous, large-scale battles of the Napoleonic wars." Wargamers play Richard Borg's games for different reasons than those that play Johnny Reb, Armati, and Grande Armee. And unlike Richard Borg, John, Arty, and Sam are claiming the same thing for their art that Don Troiani does for his: it accurately represents a portion of history. You know, their game designs "present," "simulate", and "recreate" the past-and anyone trying to mimic something of real events in their game design is by definition attempting to create a simulation. Wargame design is an art and wargame designers sometimes claim accuracy, like Richard Hasenauer: "The ebb and flow of Civil War conflict has been recreated in Fire and Fury, an innovative game system using miniature armies to recreate battles of the American Civil War. The system, the result of five years of development, emphasizes playability without sacrificing historical accuracy." Sometimes they don't, like Larry Harris, the designer of Axis and Allies speaking of his original 1972 design 1942: "The goal was not to detail WWII, but to provide the players with a sense of the basic strategies and core decisions-and their results." When wargame designers insist their wargame presents something factual, "the way it was," then their art must be historically accurate to succeed. Like a Don Troiani painting, a game design is accurate only to the degree that it matches the known historical record. No one should be surprised that Don does at least as much research as any game designer, if not more. BAD ART IS AN ARTISTS FAILURE Don Troiani knows what makes a painting accurate, and is upfront about how a failure to be historically precise renders his art "worthless." Other folks may disagree, but that is Don's conclusion, and a logical one based on his goals for his paintings. When game designers state their intent is to `recreate' historical battles, they are making claims of accuracy. If those designers fail to present factual history, then the design has failed to achieve an identified design goal-the definition of a bad design. The same is true if the designer says his primary goal was to create a fun game, and it's actually a bore. AVOID THE BUGABOOS What is a `bugaboo?' An idea or belief which proves to be a tiresome source of unnecessary difficulties. So, when the old 'wargame design is an art, not science' bugaboo is raised, don't be caught by it. Listen to see if the argument concludes, ipso facto, that wargames can't be accurate or precise. Often included will be the idea that Art requires game designers to be vague and subiective, that their artistic, intuitive decisions eliminate any possibility of precision or accuracy. And of course, this excludes simulations, because they are "scientific." Then, there is the argument that far too much information must be included in an historical wargame or accurate simulation to make it practical, let alone enjoyable to play. Of course, who made up this rule is never explained. All this will lead to the erroneous conclusion that the only possible judgment in art is personal taste. Anyone who actually believes that simply doesn't know art as a craft, a set of skills, or as a creative process. Many times this bugaboo is `proven' by detailing just how hard it is to design a game and keep it 'accurate'-It is hard, and it is made harder when basic methodology is ignored. as it often is in such arguments. If you intend your design to represent something else, like history, it can be particularly hard. It is much like painting an exact copy of a Picasso. It is far more technical and exacting than painting the original-and it's also a different kind of art in both methodology and purpose. Insisting that historical accuracy in wargames and simulations is impossible because it's art not only argues for a vague, `feels good' status quo, but also avoids acknowledging the very nature of historical accuracy or precision in other art like Don Troiani's paintings. Don't be fooled. Simply because a game designer can't figure out how to create an historically accurate wargame doesn't automatically prove that it can't be done. Such ideas derail creative thinking, mainly because it isn't true: Art can be historically accurate and should be when the designer makes such claims for his design. He is stating that his creation is representational art. And remember, even within that self-imposed restriction, artists still enjoy a huge amount of self-expression. Look at Don's art. There is a great deal in his `accurate' paintings that is pure personal choice. For instance, he often is exercising complete artistic license when he determines the composition and dominate colors of a painting. So beware. Such 'wargame design is not a science' arguments cloud what is very clear: Art succeeds when it achieves the goals the artist sets for it. One of those goals can be historical accuracy. This is certainly true for historical wargame designers-It all depends on what goals they make for their creative efforts and how they demonstrate success. For instance, when John Hill claims that Johnny Reb provides "all the problems of commanding formed bodies of men in the midst of the maelstrom of battle," how many problems is that, and how does he know? Back to MWAN # 132 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Legio X 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