Sometimes as I peruse my bi-monthly copy of the MWAN, it occurs to me that rather than innovation what perhaps is needed in wargaming today is a return to the basics, a return to people actually playing the games, i.e., rolling dice, measuring with rulers, and pushing and positioning lead figures ever simulated terrain. Rather than produce endless sets of rules most of which are forgotten when the latest one is hot off the press, would it not be a more unifying factor among the wargaming community if perhaps a common set of rules for each period was used? If everyone used for example WARGAMES RESEARCH RULES or the Young-Lawford CHARGE rules and then with these as a common base or reference point improved and innovated these rules, would we as wargamers not be more aware of the universal problems and nuances of our chosen hobby?
The continuous writing of rules and developing of game mechanisms is not a bad thing I suppose, but one is led to wonder if the authors of these tomes ever really wargame, i.e. roll dice, etc? Of the countless sets of wargame rules that collect dust on every avid wargamers shelf hew many other than-a handful are still in print, in current use, or in current memory. The pages of MWAN resound with plaintive cries to return to simplicity, return to the Donald Featherstone style, but these cries are sandwiched between new, improved small arms charts and the morale modifiers for left-handed natives of mixed parentage on alternate Tuesdays.
Some of the most avid and skilled warganers (i.e. these who roll dice, etc.) never painted a figure or devised an artillery effects table. But what they do Is the very essence of wargaming -- they play. I am most certain that the Prussian officers playing Kriegspiel last century did net spend any hours painting crossbelts on their troops and even H.G. Wells used to shoot projectiles at his store bought, already painted Britains lead soldiers. I admit Wells did author a set of rules (LITTLE WARS), but at least he had the decency to stop at one. By definition, wargaming should be a simulated combat. How much more can be innovative and written about fire, movement, melee and morale?
Wargaming is a hobby in which all aspects, painting, research, rules writing, etc., can be enjoyed, but let us not forget that one is not a mind less cretin just be cause one doesn't pro duce a new set of rules every half hour. Now that I've got that off my chest, pass me the dice so I can charge and breakthrough the 12th Cuirassier.
(Editor's Notes I admit to a certain amount of puzzlement over Dave's article. Since I have written a number of articles regarding firing charts and morale charts and have also said numerous times that I prefer the Featherstone approach to wargaming, I have to suspect that his article concerns my approach to some degree. It is important, in my opinion, to keep in mind that the actual gaming aspect, as Dave feels is most important, may not be that high in importance to others, which includes me. If the gaming aspect of wargaming was the only avenue open to me, I would not be in this hobby as gaming ranks last as far as I am concerned. Nor am I interested in becoming a skilled wargaming commander. I enjoy, as many others do, painting, organizing, rules writing and conducting games. There has been much discussion ever the years in the hobby regarding the possible acceptance of one set of rules for each period and perhaps we have come close to that with WRG, though I am sure it will never happen.
Let me just list a few problems with this suggestion that I see. Whose set of rules do we accept as a "basic" set to modify? We each see what actually happened on the battlefield in different ways and each of us try to re-create it in the way that we ourselves see it. To do so in any other way reduces the enjoyment felt. Also,when one modifies a rules set, it beuw-s something different. I would assume that what has happened in the hobby is that we began with a basic rules set and everyone who writes rules, has modified that basic set into what they view warfare as. I see no degree of dichotomy between preferring simple rules (ala Featherstone) and being highly interested in various ways to pfesentlthem on.the tabletop in-simple methods. We are all in this hobby for different reasons and to me, it seems a mistake to attempt to define wargamers as David did (i.e. "those who roll dice, etc.") into narrow confines. We are narrow enough as it stands already. Any other comments?)
Back to MWAN # 20 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1986 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