The night matched my mood, dark and stormy. I didn't really want to be doing this, yet I knew I must if I was ever to again find peace. Something had to be done, the problems were driving me mad. I was losing control - everywhere I looked I saw probability distributions, I was rolling dice to decide what to order for lunch. I was designing tables to decide which clothes to wear, command and control simulation was taking over my life... At last a friend told me about Simulators Anonymous, I had to try it.

I finally reached the quilting supplies store where the meeting was being held and went in. The meeting started innocently enough, some introductions, a few brief readings from Featherstone, then the part I was dreading - time for my confession. I approached the podium with all the enthusiasm of a convicted man approaching the gallows. With a dry mouth and tense gut I started, "My name is Jim Getz and I am a Simulator. I have played Empire." A visible shudder went through the audience. "I designed Chef de bataillon with 124 tables." A groan escaped from many lips and in the back some poor devil hit the floor hard in a dead faint. "I have studied probability and statistics and used computer programs to design rules mechanics, I have..."

WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT! !! Yeah, I did all that but gheez, so what! I liked playing Empire, and Chefwould be a great game if anyone played it right, and how often are you going to use the "Bridge Damage From Floating Debris" table anyway' Besides that I am an engineer, what do you expect? And after all there is no big magic about simulation anyway, is there?? Its just model building, a statement of opinion based on your observations.

Well, that is not quite the case either, it would seem. Over the past year or so there has been an awful lot of discussion in magazines, on the Internet, and around pitchers of beer on simulation and gaming and which rules are simulations and which are not and who is just playing a game I and who is doing "real" simulation. I would, therefore, like to put forward some thoughts on gaming and simulation in an effort to see if there is some common ground between the camps, or whether we are two completely different breeds trying to coexist in the same hobby. In doing this I would like to use as examples two very different rule sets - Empire (3'd through 5th editions) and Piquet.

As you might expect, these two rule sets were not chosen at random. First, to reveal all associations, I have a strong personal connection with both. I created the basic design that Scott Bowden and I eventually used to develop Empire, 3rd Edition and the subsequent 4th and 5th editions. Piquet by Bob Jones, a friend of almost 25 years, is a game that I have come to play to the virtual exclusion of all others, I must admit. And, although I had no role in its design, I am using its suite of tools to develop two games, some supporting products, and I have recently taken over editorship of the Piquet newsletter. I therefore can say that I probably have equal affection and emotional attachment, as well as some business interest in each. Secondly, these two games, I feel, have to some degree become standards, or perhaps, emblems of two different approaches to the writing of wargame rule sets.

Empire, 3rd Edition (hereafter, just Empire) broke a lot of new ground when it was first published. When we marketed it and promoted it, we were quite generous in our use of the "simulation" label to attempt to differentiate it and express what we felt was, at that time, a new approach. As a result it is still mentioned consistently in the ranks of simulation wargames. It has also become a standard of sorts for reviews of new rule sets. This is almost always expressed in one of two ways. Either the rule set is "as good as Empire" or the rule set is "as bad as Empire!" As someone once said, it doesn't matter what they say, as long as they spell your name right!

Piquet is a very new game, having only been commercially available for slightly more than a year. It is, I think, one of first miniatures rule sets to be largely promoted via the Internet, as well as the more traditional avenues. While it has not been around long enough to yet be a standard, it has, largely though the action on the Internet, been granted the status of an emblem for a new "school" of wargame design. This school of design is seen by many as antithetical to simulations as represented by Empire. In fact those that hold this view would seem to class it as just a game, in the same sense as Monopoly or chess are games, and unlike a simulation in any significant aspect.

Let's look at this - is there any objective reason to class Empire as a simulation and Piguet as a game? Taking a studious approach and getting out my well worn copy of Webster, a game is defined as "amusement or sport involving competition under rules." There is no question that both result in "competition under rules." And we certainly don't play these things to feel bad so they would both qualify as "amusement." Therefore it would seem that both qualify as games. Webster says that to simulate is "to look or act like." Having played both games I have seen no indication that the presentation made on the tabletop by either game looks any more or any less like the military event attempting to be reproduced. Indeed you can play Piquet with Empire organized troops, so the look can be identical. No reason for not calling either a simulation here. As to the question of "act like," this is a more complex issue I want to return to later.

Ignoring Webster and taking a more design theory approach to the question what do we find? To me one of the overriding characteristics that identifies an activity as a game (in the vain of Monopoly, chess, checkers, etc.) is that of equality of opportunity for success. That is, at the start of the game, each and every player has an equal chance of success. On this basis, neither would classify as a game. One of the common knocks against Empire is that it is pro-French (that's intended to be a joke - I actually think it is pro-British!). And one of the basic design concepts of Piquet is that life, let alone war, isn't fair, and Piquet implements this precept with great determination. Many a new player has uttered the familiar complaint, "But I didn't get to move!! " before they discover the protective strategies required by the game. Another gaming science concept that can be applied to some extent to common games is the idea of a zero-sum game. This in effect means that one side's loss is the other side's gain. This is not typical of either of these games, or for that matter, of most wargames that readers of this article play. It is entirely possible to defeat some enemy unit but be hurt so badly in the process that you really gain no advantage.

So where are we? We have shown that both are games, both are not games, both are simulations, but we haven't yet discussed the question of do they "act like" the thing we are trying to simulate. Let's now look at that question.

There have been many people who have attempted to make this determination based simply upon the structure and mechanics of the two games, usually in an attempt to show that Piquet is just a game, for example: "It must be a game because it uses cards," or, "It can not be a simulation because it has no defined turn sequence," or some other variation on these themes. All of these arguments, and the similar ones that were brought against Empire when it was first published can be dismissed out of hand. They confuse means and end. The only relevant measure for the "acts like" criteria is whether or not the outputs generated by the model for given inputs "act like" the outputs of the real world entity with the same inputs. This is the "black box" concept that is fundamental to simulation. How the inputs are converted into outputs is totally irrelevant to the evaluation. You can slaughter chickens and read their entrails if you wish, the choice of mechanic is a matter of personal preference and efficiency, not of evaluation of the model's quality.

Really, the most important question here is what is it that these possible simulations are attempting to act like? A simple answer would be Napoleonic battle. While being a simple answer, it is also a wrong answer. What I believe to be the correct answer is much more subtle.

More than twenty some years ago, when I started the design that was to become Empire, I told Scotty that what I wanted to do was to design a rule set that would allow the gamer to play a battle like it was described in the history books. It is only very recently that I have come to of Napoleonic battle that is exactly like that found in the history books! It is an interactive history book view to be sure, but a history book view none the less. It is a well organized, logically progressing narration of a combat complete with detail descriptions of each critical event including footnotes on why the event happened as it did. - just as a professional historian would have recorded it if he were to study it. On this basis we can say that Empire does pass the "act like" test of being a simulation, but, and this is the subtle part, what it is simulating is not the Napoleonic battle itself, but the historian's perspective of the Napoleonic battle. Please understand that I am in no way criticizing, making fun of, or disparaging the approach taken in Empire, quite the contrary. The perspective, and this is the key word, of Empire is absolutely valid and rational in my opinion. It is indeed the perspective of the historian attempting to describe the critical events, their relationships, causes and outcomes. But, I would put to you that the historian's perspective it is not the only valid perspective!

Piquet's perspective is decidedly different. Twenty some years ago, Bob and I co-authored a series of articles in the old Courier on the systems approach to wargaming.The final installment of this series proposed the development of what we called the "information flow wargame." What Bob has created in Piquet is, in my opinion, an information flow wargame from the command chain perspective. As a wargamer playing Piquet, you are presented with information that "acts like" the information that flows through the command chain of an army engaged in a Napoleonic battle. You act not as a specific commander but as the entire command chain, burdened or benefited by the abilities of the miniature commander on the scene of the current event. Information about what is happening is fragmented, incomplete, or down right wrong, events are not sequentially ordered, things happen with no explanation as to why, and you are limited as to your ability to respond even if you think you know what is happening. In short, what you see on the table is not necessarily what you think is going on. This is an entirely different rperspective than that taken by Empire, but in my opinion, it is as equally valid as that taken by Empire; and, we can also say that Piquet therefore also "acts like" that which it is trying to model, the command chain's perspective of the battle as it happens; and, Piquet is, therefore, just as much of a simulation as Empire.

So we have now shown that both Empire and Piquet are games, are not games, and are simulations. Stated differently, they are different in technique and composition, but certainly of the same class. The larger question here is why does it seem to matter so much to us? Borrowing from Jung's concepts of the collective unconscious and the archetype we can perhaps hypothesize a reason. Let's say that the historical wargaming community has in its collective unconscious a common archetype of the Napoleonic battle, but everyone's individual actualization, his perspective, of the archetype is different. As a result two truths emerge. First every wargame designed to represent the Napoleonic battle will be different, because each designer's actualization of the archetype is different; in fact they must be different. Second, as gainers, our reaction to any rule set will depend upon whether or not the design strikes some resonance with us that allows us to activate the archetype. Those traits that result in this activation are practically by definition specific to the individual and not universal across all wargamers. For example, I find the playing of computer based games and board games to be at best OK, and more frequently tedious and boring. Why? Because one of the necessary ingredients for activating my archetype of battle is the miniature. If a wargame does not have a miniature then, to me, it is lacking a depth, a frame of reference, a reality if you will that wargames with miniatures have. Does this mean that board games and computer games are less historic, less real, inferior? Certainly not! It just means that I do not enjoy them as much because my perspective and my requirements for activating the archetype are different.

Arguments concerning the superiority of differing perspectives are as usefill as those concerning the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. It is a matter of faith. It is unresolvable. It is unproductive. Rather we should be using these new and different perspectives to enhance our understanding, our playing enjoyment, and improving our own perspectives.