In the "Outgoing Mail" section of the Strategy & Tactics May issue, Joe Miranda, Editor-In -Chief, discusses the state of game design and poses a thought provoking question centered on the merits of simple vs. complex designs. It is his opinion that "wargaming stands at a threshold" since state-of-the-art game systems "have the potential to recreate accurately and richly a wide range of simulations". He asks,

So why should we turn nor backs on this expanding design frontier in the hope of returning to some mythical era of simplicity?

Let me say, at the outset of my editorial, that I disagree with Joe's premise that a complex game system with new concepts is needed to make a challenging historical simulation and that we should strive for games of greater design complexity with a never-ending goal of richer and richer simulations. Rather, I advance the notion that "the game's the "thang."

As one who has been in this hobby for more than thirty years, since the 50s when Avalon Hill's Gettysburg was it, I've witnessed tremendous change and growth in historical gaming, most of it positive. Most of The growth came from trying to satisfy pent up demands for thoughtful strategic games more challenging than checkers and less abstract than chess. The market demand for historical games was fueled by steady improvements in both graphics quality and design. We went from simple two-color maps to more beautiful and complex four- and five-color maps portraying a wealth of terrain information. Unit counters went from single to two-sided with a significant increase in information contained thereon. And rules went looney tunes, taken to their ultimate by the 178 pages of rules and charts to be, digested in order to play Richard Berg's The Campaign for North Africa (SPI, 1978), State-of-the-art design? Oh yeah! A wonderful simulation of what happened in Africa during World War II? Probably. Playable? Oh no!

So, where is the right balance between playability and simulation?

[Ed note: I think 'complexity' would be a more appropriate term here.]

How sophisticated should the game system be? I prefer a simpler game design that offers lots of strategic and tactical play challenge, like Panzergruppe Guderian or Bloody Kasserine. Rules arc manageable and complete and the games can be played in four to six hours. I'm a lot more likely to play a game like PGG than one that is complex without apparent purpose, such as Friedland, the latest S&T game. An elegant, state-of-the-art game design that remains unpunched and unplayed on the shelf isn't worth doing and doesn't represent a contribution to our hobby. The designer's goal should be to respond to the need of the market and not to increase the complexity of a game by introducing clever new concepts without a purpose, other than to satisfy his own creative genius. The goal should be to design enjoyable games that simulate history and will be played--the game is the thing, not the design. For me, a good game is one that presents a balanced harmony between playability and simulation. The design doesn't get in the way of the game. I remember being terribly disappointed when, in 1980, SPI finally released the long awaited remake of their earlier Kursk game. It was awful-needlessly complex and very tedious. No doubt, Eric Goldberg, the designer, was pleased with his great leap forward in game design technology but, who ever cared! I doubt that many have ever played SPI's 1980 version of Kursk and even fewer have played it more than once.

In his commentary, Miranda goes on to say

Let's not blow it simply because we don't want to spend a couple of extra hours reading rules.

My guess is that he spends a lot more time designing than listening to his customers because he doesn't appear to appreciate the implications of his statement. For me, a "couple of extra hours reading rules" is a significant amount of time taken away from playing the game. For example, if I line up a game for a Saturday, one that I've never played, I will put in several hours reading rules, Setting up and solitairing the game beforehand. I've played so many games over the years that, unless I've played one a lot, or recently, I tend to forget the rules and must review before playing. In some cases, like Victory Games' Civil War I can't play the game unless I have the rules in front of me, even though I've read the rules and played the game many times. I don't need a couple more hours of rules reading.

I'll probably never play Friedland, even though it might be an excellent game. If anything, I'd be much more likely to try the companion game, Vittoria, because I can breeze through the 5 pages of rules in about 10 minutes, recognize plenty of familiar concepts, and be underway in less than a half hour. Let's face it, if I want to play a great Napoleonic game, I'm not likely to pick up a copy of Friedland. I'm more likely to dig out XTR's Hougoumont: Rock of Waterloo, SPI's Napoleon's Last Battles Quad, or Wellington's Victory. I suggest designers try the following simple test before embarking on their next project

I having selected the battle to be simulated, get a decent spectrum of 10 to 20 gamers together and ask them their favorite games of the period and why. Then ask them if they would prefer to see an innovative new design covering the battle or an adaptation of an existing design.

In most cases, I believe gamers prefer to see a favorite design adapted to portray a different battle, rather than struggle through learning a new design. Give me another East Front game with the PGG system and I'll take it in an instant over a new system. Or, give me a new game using the Operation Typhoon system and I'll be there. Put 100 gamers in a room and offer them Bloody Kasserine or The Campaign for North Africa. At least 90% will take Bloody Kasserine. The problem is, this puts designers out of business. They don't get to stir their creative juices and, after all, where's the satisfaction in that?

At the risk of taking off on a tangent, I'll tell you where 1, as a customer and consumer, would like game designers to spend more time and effort-not on advancing the state-of-the-art beyond its practical limit-but on seeing the project through to completion. I'm fired of seeing half-baked games hastily pushed through by manufacturers anxious to stop the financial bleeding and recover their investment. These unfinished products are dumped on the market with insufficient development and testing. Game rules are often incomplete, poorly written, and, in many cases, contain spelling and grammar errors that even the most basic spell checker would catch. Then, of course, there is the dreaded errata. One of the best, but most pitiful examples of this is 3W's Hitler's Last Gamble, with 15 pages of corrections-unforgivable! As a former playtester I can safely state that many times playtest feedback is ignored, mostly as a result of poor planning and the press of the schedule. Thus, even the most basic game flaws remain in the product.

Avalon Hill is one of the best companies at thoroughly developing and testing a new game design before its release. Consider their product releases over the past few years and as yourself-How many were half-baked and unplayable? Not only is this a rarity, but most of their products are very popular and well played. Indeed, some have even become classics. I believe that this success comes from a disciplined approach to game design that integrates thorough development, playtesting, and review before the product is released. But, it also comes from a staff of seasoned veterans who have been around long enough to know the right way to go about developing a new product that the customer will want to purchase and play.

So, where does all this take us? I suggest more emphasis on the following minimum guidelines when considering the design and manufacture of a new game:

1. Try to rind out what the customer wants, Conduct as much market research as time and money will permit Time spent here will go a long way toward insuring that the game will be popular. If you use magazine feedback, make sure that the responses are representative of the market.

2. Create Me new game design using as many proven concepts as possible, The design can still be innovative and unique, particularly when an established designer uses his own previously developed concepts. Don't experiment on the customer.

3. Consider the design as an element of the whole, Stay with the design through its development and push for as much playtesting as time will allow. Playtesting is cheap market validation. Listen to the feedback.

4. Pay attention to the details Check the counters and maps for errors--over and over. There is no excuse for rules spelling and grammar errors. Strive for perfection and don't settle for less.