There seems to be a paradox in wargaming, in that very often, wargames representing the most basic, elementary and least sophisticated styles of warfare, e.g. battles of antiquity, battles involving native warriors, or barbarians seem to generate wargame rulebooks of tome-like proportions when it seems the opposite should be true. More plainly stated, why is it that the more complex and advanced weaponry and tactics become, the simpler the rules simulating them seem to be, while ancient warfare requires page upon page of data? Most ancient warfare consisted of simple missile exchanges immediately followed by a head-long rush to engage in melee. For many rule writers this seems to be more difficult to represent than choppers over the Mekong Delta, or laser guns on Mars. Perhaps the answer to this is that "modern" warfare (from the age of gunpowder to the present day) utilizes machines and artificial energy. These two factors are more easily translated into charts and game mechanisms since they are also fabrications of the human mind and not the unthinking natural response of human reflex and muscle power and have less dependence on that ambiguous human factor known as "morale". The effect of a Minie ball is more easily recorded, measured, analyzed and requires less space in a rulebook to simulate than the short jabbing thrust of a Legionnaire's gladius, or the disrupting effect of a charging berserker. If indeed this is the case, is it then necessary to document every combination of arms and muscle power, or does the die roll in essence really represent what wargaming is trying to simulate anyway? Back to MWAN #53 Table of Contents © Copyright 1991 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