A while back, I read an editorial in another game magazine that touted "closure" as the event which causes a game to be fun. The writer felt that it is the end of the game and the determination of who won that is the fun of our hobby. The writer used this view to "prove" that games should be playable in one quick sitting. That way one player or the other would win (and, therefore, have fun) and that would be it. Naturally, such games should be very simple so that no heavy thought need be brought to the game. (Let's not trouble the guys in the Thinking-man's Hobby with having to think!) The game would boil down to a handful of turns where one strives to get 3:1 regularly, and keep his opponent from doing so in return. This should be the fun of wargames...

Maybe for some people.

Aside from these guys (who have every right to like their kind of game, don't get me wrong), what gives the rest of us fun in these games? I contend it comes from the process of play. It springs from the plans you devise and how you execute them against an enemy who is skilled and willful of his own plans and in opposing yours. The fun comes from analyzing the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, in coming up with a plan to attack them, and doing so with the least amount of exertion possible. Further enjoyment comes from rolling the plan into action and watching your opponent scramble to meet the threat. Likewise, should the plan stumble or even fail, you can learn new methods to apply next time that might work better.

In other words, the fun comes from the play of the game against a skilled and pitiless opponent who would like nothing more than to hand you your head. Perhaps you'll come out on top, perhaps not--regardless, a match between two excellent players will bring a great deal of fun. In fact the fan of the play will be so much that in a long game, the matter of who won or lost isn't very important After all, you were so busy trying to win (and having fun doing so) that the actual victory might come as an anticlimax.

Here are two examples of play. Decide for yourself which would be more fun.

In a heated contest of a large game, two fairly evenly matched players go head to head-each making and responding with multiple examples of masterful play. They play the game over an extended time with each side taking time between sessions to reexamine his position and that of the enemy. The players consult various historical texts of what really happened (what worked and what didn't). Thus, they return to each session ready to apply the analysis done at leisure when each player contemplated the game and how to approach it. The end of the game may be some time in the future, depending on the available time and how big the "bite-sized" chunks of play are. In the end, one player loses, the other wins.

In the other game, which will end after a couple of hours (the length of perhaps one session above), the two players pop each other a few times. They run around the map some, and end by being the last guy to get a unit into hex 1323. Sure, they can come back next week and run the entire game again with some new scheme to win. However, they can hardly develop new plans based upon an evolving situation of their own making. It reminds me of a single pitch and swing in baseball--the batter either hits the thing, or he doesn't. There is no time to examine the swing to determine that it is a little off and to adjust. The best the batter who misses can do is to step up to the plate and try again.

I'll be the first to admit that we need both styles of game. Some guys just don't have the space to leave something set up for extended periods. As one with small children and pets, I know where they are coming from. The time factor is another issue. If a guy has the space to leave something undisturbed for extended periods, time should not be an issue. If you have two hours a week to play the quick game, you can find the time to devote that period to the larger game in two hour blocks. No one I know tries to run all the way through a large game in one sitting. So, I can only infer that it is lack of space that decides how large of a game you can attempt. I know of numerous large Europa games that have even run for years of play (a weekend here, a weekend there). Where space isn't a problem time ceases to be important. Where space is a problem, time is critical.

Thankfully, games of all sizes and times of play are being produced these days. My company has pursued both ways-although the two-hour or less crowd doesn't have much to find from us. As always we strive for a mix. It is unfortunate that so many infer from our "Up & Coming" columns that we are "drifting into more larger games". They see this as a trend (which invariably brings back ghosts of SPI and the like). What they fail to understand is that the larger games take much longer to generate and that they show upon the radar screen years before the smaller ones. The net effect is that the large games show up on the list years in advance, mid many smaller ones that will come out much earlier don't. That, of course, causes the illusion of numerous large games in proportion to the small ones.

So, what does bring about the fun of the games we love? I feel it is the free competition on an intellectual level with like-minded people. It is the process of play. Another way of looking at it is a musical analogy. The "closure" concept says that a person enjoys music because he feels good when the song ends. My version is that you enjoy the music while it's happening. Take your pick.

Remember: Good Planets are Hard to Find... Please Recycle!