(Editor's Note: This article was submitted to THE NUGGET, the journal of WARGAMES DEVELOPMENT in England by Ned who also sent a copy to me and kindly suggested that if Arthur Harman, editor of THE NUGGET, would agree, it could be reprinted in'MWAN as well. Arthur, when contacted, kindly consented and it is through the kindness of Ned and Arthur that it is being printed in MWAN. Membership and subscription information for THE NUGGET is available by writing Bob Cordery, SO Booth Close, Thamesmead, London, SE28, England.)
Having worked in one capacity or another for five years with George Jeffrey on his CODE NAPOLEON, which uses his VLB (variable length bound) ideas in a Napoleonic rules set, I thought it might be worthwhile for me to give my perspective to NUGGET readers on the VLB, after Peter Dennis recently gave me a copy of an article he submitted on the topic. As Peter states, George is still working away and is in the market for playtesters. I can only heartily agree that involvement with George and his ideas is a sure way to change a Napoleonic gamer's perspective and the way he approaches Napoleonic history and games. I am a good example of this.
I had just had my own rules published when I first came across George and his ideas in NUGGET. A correspondence developed and my entire way of examining military history, especially Napoleonic, and my views on how to simulate it were entirely changed.
Now, I lay no claims to a great intellect or historical ability; yet by having a set of rules sold to, and published by, a commercial company in 1981 (as opposed to printing my own rules), and by researching and writing articles for the US amateur hobby press, I have gained a small reputation for "knowing something" about the Napoleonic era amongst Napoleonic miniature gamers. I'm not in the "top rank"; I suppose you might list me as a "second rank" authority of sorts (all it really proves is that if you read a few books, form a few opinions and then get them printed somewhere, other people will consider you an authority, even if the reputation is undeserved!
Editor's Note: I think Mr. Zuparko underestimates his ability!). If I can be totally diverted fioni my "own set" upon publication because the new ideas are so powerful, perhaps you can, too!
This does not mean that I agree with everything George says or that I accept his word uncritically (Peter Dennis can attest to that!). One of George's strengths is that he doesn't see his work as the "final word" but instead as a "first step."
You'll note that so far I've spoken of "great ideas" - but the typical response so far as always been, "Yes, great IDEAS ... but impractical, as evidenced by the lack of publication, after many years of work. Obviously the VLB won't work," The problem here is not with the VLB, but instead with the expectations of individuals for a "VLB game". So, yes, in some ways George's system fails for some people, while it works in some ways for some people, Much of this involves definitions of what is "realistic" and what is "playable" in a game, as well as individual beliefs about game design and Napoleonic history.
I'm not writing to excuse either CN (Code Napoleon) or the VLB. Obviously, if I felt I could make them work to my satisfaction, I'd be playing a game at the table right now instead of writing this letter. However, I'd like to define some structure for this debate, which will help us to understand the problem in this kind of design and better define-when something is a success, failure, or whether hope for, the future is justified or not. This applies, I might add, to any kind of game. I should also state that these are my views, not George's, and that he and I may disagree violently on some of them.
Let me start by defining what it takes for a game "to work properly". This means it is accurate or "realistic" enough to give what the designer and player feel is "an historical result" in portraying whatever the designer was claiming to portray, At the same time, the game must be "playable" enough to make the player feel that the time spent to play the game was not too long, and that the calculations and mechanics were not so burdensome as to ruin the game's enjoyment, and were necessary to achieve the desired results and couldn't have been achieved in a better manner. Naturally, each wargamer may have his own idea of when a game is "working properly" (George's insistance that his rules are not a "game", but rather a ''simulation" is a case in point, since he defines those terms in his own way.). Let's now take a look at "VLB" with these definitions in hind.
The Variable-length-bound idea began with Paddy Griffith and other wargamers exploring critical-event theory as a game design structure in the late 1970's. The idea was to gear game decision points to some important change, or critical event, in the battle, rather than to a fixed time period (i.e. a new "turn" every two minutes). Since critical events occurred at different times, the length of a turn or bound would vary between events, hence, "VLB".
Note that "VLB" is neither "playable" nor "unplayable" in itself. It is just a different technique that emphasizes critical event theory, (Wargamers should also be aware that there exist arguments against the validity of critical event theory in the academic world. However, since I tend to agree by and large with it, I will continue). Thus, the reason for using critical event theory is based on a belief that it is more accurate in it's portrayal of the mechanics of a battle than traditional wargame approaches. This also assumes that both approaches want to portray the same things; say, for instance, two players commanding miniature figures grouped in battalions, brigades, divisions and corps that are fighting each other (Remember, though, that there are other related military subjects in which "critical events" might be an inappropriate tool).
Thus, the first test VLB must undergo in a player's mind is whether or not critical event play is worth giving up his current system for. There are many people who put enjoyment of their game (logically enough) as the most important priority. They see things like "historical accuracy" as an impossible task; if they are already happy with what they do, they'll see no reason to change with the vague hope of more accurately portraying history,
The next critical step of the VLB process is to define what will be a critical event. This is actually a dual process, splitting along "realism" and "playability" lines, and is another place where players can reasonably disagree and split into two camps. On one hand, the designer's personal historical interpretation causes him to arbitrarily decide what, in his eyes, is a critical event and what isn't. Furthermore, real life doesn't always divide nicely into discrete "events". There may be a series of conditions which combine to cause what we will define as a "critical event". This leads to a playability decision, where the designer defines for game mechanics purposes exactly what it will take, in game terms, to be a critical event. This means abstracting some things and ignoring others to end up with a practical definition of critical event for the game.
Once that is settled, the next step is to define where things will be in time and space when critical events occur. This means that action that takes place will be in terms of a "rate" (i.e., "x rounds a minute", or "y launches an hour", etc). This is another fork in the road that can lead to different positions, and depends on the unit of measurement one chooses to record the passage of time; the larger the unit of time, the easier to play, but the accuracy factor will be cruder. For example, one could design a VLB game around the Fall of the Roman Empire and use years as the unit of time; George uses the minute for his battlefield rules, the hour for his strategic movement. (In one sense, this is nothing more than the old "turn" system of game design in that a fixed-time period is chosen and a certain amount of effect is assigned to it. The difference is that in old games critical events automatically follow each turn or time period; in the VLB these time sentiments only measure the rate of continuous activity that will not cease until a decision point, as defined by the critical event rules, is reached),
The question of rates further subdivides opinion on whether or not a game works from an historical point of view. The data used for the rates of action, like history itself, is open to debate, Choosing a march rate of 50 yards a minute instead of 100 yards a minute, or an artillery attrition rate of two men per minute, instead of 50-men a minute can give individual designs totally different results. If players don't understand that the VLB structure is independent of the data base, and that data can be changed to suit individual historical , reaction to a "VLB" game can vary greatly, This also applies to the type of data included; One designer may wish to include data for three Napoleonic formations, the line, column and square. Another may wish to subdivide that to show four kinds of columns and two types of squares. This is additional detail in data, and makes the game less playable, but more accurate - however, it is still separate from the idea of "VLB",
In a recent NUGGET, Phil Barker stated that VLB works best when there are a lot of units, but only a few are engaged at a time. He also discusses whether or not the "look of continuous activity" is achieved, This brings up another division of opinion, based on aesthetics or the, level of symbolic representation that is acceptable to a player.
I don't entirely agree with Phil's statements, VLB is at it's most playable when there is only one basic unit. If there are more than one, playability increases as the number of units involved in critical events decreases. Remember also that we are speaking here of games with miniatures that don't use umpires. Here again many gamers may come to a parting of the ways over the "VLB" game. A boardgame, with it's symbolic distinctions of hexagon-ruled mapboards and separate cardboard counters is actually ideal for a VLB format, and I will be surprised if a VLB boardgame doesn't surface. Boardgame rules are fairly standardized and formalized, and would lend themselves to a VLB conversion rather easily. By the same token, computer wargaming is another ideal area for VLB games. Indeed, computers are best because they can provide the "fog of war", without an umpire, what is often difficult to achieve using other mediums (The question of umpires is the same for VLB as for anything else; VLB is neutral in that regard and using umpires is another area that VLB playtesters have clashed over). One of the problems, therefore, has been due to aesthetic taste, lack of interest or technical ability that has resulted in a designer, George, and a majority of the players (such as me) who have come to the system, trying to make the system work with miniatures.
As Paddy Griffith has pointed out, miniatures have many self-imposed restrictions and are more suited for aesthetics than game design. This medium has also caused some observers to miss the forest for the trees; since George is designing a Napoleonic game, and happens to use 5mm figures, I've been told by many USA miniatures gamers that "VLB can only work with 5mm figures, and everybody here uses 15mm or 25mm." This statement totally mixes up VLB theory, one designer's historical interpretation, game level and miniatures into one inaccurate assumption. Once beliefs like that take root, it becomes very difficult to change them.
A look at "continuous action" from stationary lead miniatures is another example of the miniatures aesthetic paradox that illustrates yet another parting of the ways I've witnessed among some VLB playtesters. The traditional turn system has every turn synchronized since they all end at the same time. The player sees all units on the table from on high, all at the same point of gamertime. He has come to accept this, aesthetically, as the standard of witnessing continuous action, even if no historical commander could ever see that. Thus, the player has traditionally demanded the dual role of over-all observer as well as commander of all involved units.
Some VLB players till want that ability, too. It merely means that when the first critical event occurs on the table, all other actions are carried out up to the point of that first event. Therefore, they are all synchronized. This means that the game mechanics will carry out decision-making successively, as each event occurs chronologically. This tends to slow playability down.
Many players from a traditional game background also want to "control their own troops"; they don't want to command other players' units or have other players take any of their units during the game, even if that means a player stands around at the table for an hour with nothing to do.
In his rules, though, George separates the functions of command and control. A large part of his game/historical theory involves devising a plan for sub, ordinates to carry out. Therefore, he encourages players to take the troops of other players and to carry out the orders the first player had written, as a playability aid.
He does this in conjunction with "dislocation", a word he has coined to describe the carrying out of tactical engagements (a critical event) simultaneously, even though they occur at different game-time points. Dislocation is not required by VLB design - it is a playability aid. It also presupposes an aesthetic acceptance of a non-synchronized tabletop and abandonment of the dual observer/commander role for players, Dislocation has been a big sticking point in George's design, due both to lack of rules-definition clarity and players objecting to (or becoming confused by) the new look of the tabletop battle,
VLB design for miniatures is a presentation of a series of tableaux or still pictures. The player is told that a critical event has occurred, and the miniatures are laid out to-model what he could see or understand at that time. The question of seeing all of the critical events simultaneously while understanding they didn't occur at the same time requires a different frame of mind as well as aesthetic taste than would carrying out each modelled situation separately and in chronological order
Furthermore, this is not a requirement of VLB, but of one designer's approach. However, since the Jeffrey approach is the best known, many assume it is the only way; and while some agree and others disagree with it, or feel it needs a different mechanical means towards the same end, "Jeffrey" and "VLB" tend to be lumped together.
George's CODE NAPOLEON has undergone many changes in five years, sometimes going full circle, sometimes off on a tangent. It's biggest problem has been one of definition and player expectations, From this article I hoped I have shown the many points of divergence reasonable people may encounter, and where each point involves personal definition of what it takes in "realism" and "playability".
There have also been the same bugs any set of rules might have in terms of mechanics that fail or explanations being faulty or some things that just plain don't work; this has often been complicated by George's style of explanation, argument and debate (which are sometimes counterproductive), his own complex personality, and his own unique approach to history and military systems (which I have found to be most rewarding).
The difference between George's work and a traditional rules set is that other sets can tell a reader "To understand this design, take 90% of a game you already understand, and add this further 10%." With George's Napoleonic rules the ratio is reversed, as players deal with new theories of game design, George's historical interpretation, playability ideas, game mechanics, aesthetic taste, objectives and simulated levels of his game, rules writing ability and advocacy of his opinions.
The main problems the testers have had have been in their definitions of what is playable and what isn't. The rules have therefore gone round and round on where to force players to adopt specific behaviors and where they should be free to choose, and what effect these decisions have on the length of time the game takes and how the decisions taken relate to George's interpretation of how battles were fought. Much of this has happened because of different personal definitions held by designer and testers on how they thought the game should work, or what players should be required to know or do. One thing is for sure, though -- those who have stuck with this approach for any length of time, even if they haven't got it working exactly right yet, are convinced that it can be done. The VLB system, and some of George's ideas may have to be modified to accomodate personal ideas to some extent, but these players have been "spoiled" and either they never approach their previous systems in the same way again, or they discard them entirely.
(Editor's Note: I'd like to thank Ned for his kindness in making this available to MWAN as I have long had an interest in how the VLB system worked and what had been happening to it. Hope we see more of the same in the future.)
Back to MWAN # 23 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