Perhaps it is inherent in the hubris of Wargaming to attempt to design the "ultimate" simulation--the definitive treatment of the subject at hand. Hence, we see a continued parade of monster games that have grown ever more detailed with time and the evolution of the art. Even when the designer declares the project finished, gamers labor on their own to throw in more detail, to capture every subtle nuance of history and reality. What is the result of all this? Is it "the Game to end all games"? Or, is it a project so overburdened with process that playing it-if one can play it---soon acquires a sheen of desperation and deadly ennui?

Manual simulation is a medium of limited range. As a designer, asking your players to wade through tons of process is asking for a game that will disappear with all those other abandoned items on the shelves. Dean and I believe that a game must begin with and retain a steady focus on the angle of reality the designer wants to highlight.

The Civil War Brigade Series provides a case in point. The most frequent criticism of the CWB is that it allows a dichotomy of detail. Command is a detailed, layered process ranging from writing the order through delivery to acceptance and action (or lack thereof). On the other hand, artillery is generic and the movement and combat mechanics contain nothing unusual. More than one person has wondered why a game so detailed in one aspect glosses over other details.

The answer is simple. We chose to emphasize the longignored command control aspects of tactical Civil War engagements. Players can only handle so much intricacy before the flow breaks down and tedium sets in. Expanding the reality horizon in all directions at once overloads the game structure to the point where the player can no longer manipulate it easily. Take the case of die roll modifiers. DRMs most commonly portray specific historical effects simply and easily. The more DRMs a designer tosses in, the more specific effects he models. This increases the process's historical accuracy. On the other hand, the average gamer can only remember a few DRMs (10-12 max, and that's pushing it) before having to refer to the charts. Each chart referral decreases the ease of flow that ultimately determines the success or failure of a game.

In short, detail in one area must be compensated for in other areas, if the designer expects to see the game played. Hence, there is the need for focus. Choose your main area of emphasis. Place your desired level of detail there, and craft the rest of the process to flow smoothly in support of that desired highlight. In the CWB, the highlight on command control is visible in the orders system, the morale system, and the degradation-over-time effect of stragglers. The rest of the system is the supporting structure. The intent is to produce realistic overall effects without the same depth of process.

In the Tactical Combat Series (TCS) we also focused on command as well as unit cohesion (reflected in the morale process) and artillery. On the other hand, Dean streamlined individual tank combat since others have covered that in detail elsewhere. Even with the proposed 3rd Edition changes, the focus will remain on command, cohesion, and--to a much lesser extent--artillery.

While this may sound like a simple truth, sometimes I think that the whole history of Wargaming is an exercise in unreasoning idealism. Someone is always striving for that ultimate detail in the face of incontrovertible proof otherwise. Dean frequently receives letters from starry-eyed gamers asking to add his pet realistic touch to the system. Admittedly, each small change is a minor deal, but if we include everything, we'd crush the system under the weight of them all. Examples of this particular phenomenon abound. Games like War In The Pacific, Campaign For North Africa, Sharpsburg and Road To Washington represent efforts to push the envelope in all directions. All were failures as games. Simply put, they weren't much fun to play. Still, the quest for the ultimate game goes on.