Right lad, and what do you mean by such - after all, aren't all games simulations? Yes and no - most miniatures events are a combination of both, but the degree of each that is present has a major impact on what is being played. To start with, let us define game as an event in which all factors are considered, each side has a fair chance to win. Chess is undoubtably the best example of a game, as in the end, it is the player's skill that will determine who wins. Some games add the element of chance, but assuming that no one player at the event is lucky enough to have psychic control of the dice, all players should again have a fair chance to win. Often miniature events have to deal with these problems of game/simulation, and too often we fail to ensure that the players understand what is the goal that the designer/gamemaster is working for - too often the gamemaster/designer does not know himself. Consider as two different approaches to the same problem the Colonial Rules THE SWORD AND THE FLAME, and THE COLONIAL SKIRMISH RULES. THE SWORD AND THE FLAME (TSATF) and the COLONIAL SKIRMISH RULES (CSR) cover the same periods of time, weapons, and warriors, but from that point diverge and take two entirely separate routes. TSATF is an excellent example of a miniatures game in that accuracy and history are cheerfully given up in favor of a quick and simple game system that is fun to play. Each little group has it's pluses and minuses, and all is rolled together into a lump and presented as colonial warfare. This is not to say that it is a bad thing - for the system and game is great fun. Now, the CSR represent the opposite end - they are designed to actually simulate colonial warfare on a very exact basis. Hits are calculated as to the exact point on each person - figures cower in reaction as events unfold about them. We worry whether or not the weapon used is the Lee Metford or the Lee Enfield and whether the natives have enough rounds or not. Great fun as well, however, with turns of seconds, one may spend the first two turns firing his weapon, and the rest of the game reloading it. Having present the above, I would like to submit that one problem that we have in our hobby is a failure to look at our rules and decide what type we want to have - a game or a simulation. I have never forgotten TSATF game where the British Commander took out his trusty pistol and put shots into the opposing leader, as per the rules, only to be informed by the umpire that this was not allowed "because the referee was a pistol shot and cold not see how this was possible in the real world". A valid point for a simulation, but out of place in a game where this ability of the British to pick their target often is the thin difference between victory and defeat. On the other hand, I have seen simulation s where in desperate efforts to make a game that was "fair" to both sides, that history was pushed aside and the end result failed in it's purpose - after all, how can you do a simulation of the Little Big Horn and give the cavalry a fighting chance to survive, let alone win! However, there is hope in this field. One excellent entry for a miniatures event that qualifies in both areas is the noted Rorke's Drift game by our own editor, Hal Thinglum. It is one of the best examples of a miniature event that is both a simulation and a game, and I hesitate to ask Hal how long he has been working on it. One lesson that we all might do well as to look at tailoring our efforts more closely to the period and event that we are interested in, and to look for those actions that can be made into good simulations/games, rather than just simulations or just games. Back to MWAN #17 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 1985 Hal Thinglum 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