What is to Be Done? --V. Lenin 1918 I've recently realized that I've spent a little over 20 years in our hobby and it has caused me to reflect on my continual involvement; how the hobby of wargaming has evolved and now it's current direction - or - lack thereof. No, I'm not going to get on a "high horse" and preach - 'call it a gentle plea if you will - the following is only my opinion, but in talking to close friends I know that my idea's are shared by many who enjoy this pastime as much as I do. So - if you're still with me - sit back and allow me to start with a story by way of introduction. Several years ago, Arty Conliffe and I met for a late night supper in Brooklyn Heights as was our wont to do frequently as at that time Arty lived in Queens and I Brooklyn. After an enjoyable meal we returned to my apartment and over coffee discussed current trends in the hobby. The coffee kept flowing because we planned to stay up til 4am to tape one of our favorite movies - THE CROSS OF IRON - probably the only realistic WWII movie ever filmed - I call it the "PLATOON" of WWII movies. The movie was rarely on TV and not available on videotape. It was a great evening/morning - we watched as I taped - the movie brims with realistic scenes and dialogue that a wargamer can easily relate to and enjoy. Yet, the point is, well, maybe not every wargamer! The wargamer who, for example, simulates WWII and has "done his homework" would relate completely to CROSS OF IRON. We come now to what I perceive is the first problem - "doing your homework" involves solid research into your chosen period. No, you do not have to obtain a 'BA' in history - good research is easy, if not tedious and timeconsuming to do; there have been several articles in MWAN (and other publications) over the years on how to do it. Figure out what you want to do - play a game or simulate as close as possible the combat conditions of your period. Understand this: I have no objection whatsoever to simple, "beer & pretzels" games/rules - I enjoy them too - but - the difference between an enjoyable game and a definitive simulation with simple mechanics is not always easy to spot unless you have done your homework! Let's put this in perspective: the night that Arty and I watched CROSS OF IRON - TACTICA existed as a rules set on two sides of a single sheet of notebook paper! We had played the first game the previous week and were pretty excited about the results; I think even those who do not consider TACTICA a definitive Ancients rules set would be hard pressed to state that it does not simulate aspects of Ancient combat conditions with simple mechanics. My first plea: rulesets should do two things - first - provide the players with a "feel" for the period based on solid research; second - rule mechanism s should be reduced to the most simple calculations that allow wargamers to play - not be forced to memorize long tables or reduce playing time in favor of administrative record keeping. A $35.00 boxed set with four color printing and 15+ charts can lack any and all of the qualities of a simulation as much as a $10.00 20 page, cardstock set with two small charts. Having served on active duty in the Navy for the past 14 years I have seen my share of combat - not "off the coast bombardments" - but, on the ground, urban, jungle, desert close quarter fighting: Grenada, Lebanon, Desert Shield/Storm, etc. - more times than I care to remember or ever repeat. No "War Stories" here - but I will tell you that the one overriding constant in warfare (any type, any period) that is usually missing from our rulesets (today) or only casually dealt with is: CONFUSION. Confusion and it's accompanying disorder and terror are the three main elements/emotions that a battlefield commander must contend with constantly. A good, experienced commander will understand these elements and prepare orders/commands that take these into account. More importantly, he realizes that he can never completely conquer them - only attempt to influence them vis-a-vis his battle plan(s) and a complete understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his chain of command, i.e. his lower echelon commanders. Why only influence: well, for one basic reason - once the battle is joined, the battlefield commander loses extended control of his forces and retains local control at best depending of course on his location and time period of warfare. The sub-units that are the easiest to control are those that have lower level commanders trained to exercise considerable initiative in battle. However, the point is that throughout the timeline of military conflict - this type of leadership has been limited. So, to my second plea: rulesets that purport to be simulations of specific time periods that ignore those elements described above and therefore allow players (commanders) to become supermen - all knowing/ all seeing deceive and contort the true conditions of warfare. Simply, these factors must be incorporated and if done dimply, will allow players to delve, albeit in a small restricted way, into their chosen period with a true understanding of it's particular chaotic conditions. Recently, in one of his Editorials, Hal stated that we are now in the "Golden Age" of Wargaming. I agree! Everything - in terms of castings, structures, terrain etc. - is available in a huge variety of scales for almost every period of warfare. In fact, and more to the point, the quality of all the aforementioned items is high and consistently improving. Have you noticed that reviews that appear in our publications for these products are fairly cut and dry owing to the fact that it is usually simple to review a line of figures or accessories and describe their high and low points. Well, not so with rule sets! These reviews cause debate, conflict, "letters to the editor", etc. Why - well - primarily because after I've stated all the above - rule sets are extremely difficult to write! Arty Conliffe told me a long time ago that rule writing is the writer's craft elevated to it's most difficult level - an acute observation that I agree with. So many factors are involved - not the least of which is attempting to convey a sense of a particular period to complete strangers. The rule set writer does not come in the box, nor does he have a toll-free number for questions and comments when difficulties arise over rule interpetation. Therefore, in summary, my final plea - combine quality research to obtain a "feel" for the chosen period, reduce all mechanical computations to the lowest common function and eliminate the pervausive intelligence factor(s) so common to most sets available today. By the way - none of this is easy to do and I make no claim to have all the answers. A quality set of rules invloves sweat, constant playtesting, esp. blind-playtesting; it also requires cooperation and patience between writers, players, reviewers and eventually all hobbyists. What is not needed is backbiting, excessive critisism for it's own sake or writers/players who feel that they alone have the only solution (you can also read that as ruleset). We are in the Golden Age - and by all of us working (and playing!) together we can develop rules that truly reflect the character and pivotal points of the time periods we engage in. Someone told me that this hobby is "Serious Fun" - that's how I see my involvement in the hobby. WHAT ABOUT YOU?! After the October Revolution, Lenin asked his Party Leaders, "Now, What is to be Done?" How would you answer that question in relation to your involvement with our hobby? Looking back, overall, I've had a great time with the first 20 years. Looking forward, I still feel good about the next 20! Back to MWAN #67 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1994 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