The "Game vs. Simulation" debate that you discussed in Operations #4 has been around it seems since the beginning of wargaming. However, I personally think that this debate has probably outlived its usefulness in our hobby, because it ignores what I think is now the most significant division in our hobby, the division between what I would call "competitive wargames" and what I would call "role-playing wargames" (and these "role-playing wargames" should not be confused with "fantasy role-playing games" which are a different type of game). I would also argue that a third category of wargames "simulation wargames" after enjoying its heyday in the 70s is beginning to die in the marketplace.

Competitive wargames are exemplified by most of the wargames published by Avalon Hill (with the notable exception of Squad Leader), most games by XTR, and games like Axis and Allies. While all of these wargames attempt to simulate war at various levels of sophistication, they are also principally designed for people who like to play to win. As stated in both Avalon Hill's The General and XTR's Command, Avalon Hill and XTR design wargames to be played as games.

Role-playing wargames include most of the monster wargames like Europa, Squad Leader, and most of The Gamers games (except Stalingrad Pocket). While these games are certainly played competitively, these games are principally designed to give the players more of a feeling of being in the role of a leader of men or armies. Monster games try to achieve these experiences by using large numbers of pieces and complicated systems to give the player the feeling he is simulating reality. Squad Leader uses detailed rules covering a wide range of possible actions by men and machinery to provide the player with the experience that his pieces are more than just cardboard counters, but men accomplishing real missions. The Gamers games try to give the player the feeling of being a commander by focusing on the issuing of commands and the fog of war.

Simulation wargames include most of the games published by SPI and by various companies since SPI's demise. In his article "Fighting Your War and Winning it Too" in Operations #5, David Demko discusses in some depth games in this category such as games in the Great Battles of the American Civil War Series, City-Fight, Assault, Firefight, Sniper, and Fire-Team. Simulation wargames try to simulate battles without being particularly concerned about whether the game is a good competitive situation or makes the player feel he is actually leading troops. Mr. Demko's analysis of the difference between First Blood (a GBACW game) and August Fury (a game published by The Gamers) illustrates the difference between a simulation wargame and a role-playing wargame. A simulation wargame will be satisfied with using a die roll to limit a player's choice of movements, a role-playing wargame will tend to limit a player's choice of movements by forcing him to take an action like issuing orders or make radio contact with the units the player is commanding.

Although I think simulation wargames are generally on the wane (except for their use in trying to understand recent conflicts such as as Desert Storm and even Vietnam) the influence of simulation wargames in the evolution of both competitive wargames and roleplaying wargames has been substantial. The existence of simulation wargames has undoubtedly caused competitive wargames to pay more attention to history. Even the least "realistic" of today's competitive wargames better simulates history than any of the AH 11 classics" of the 50s and 60s. Simulation wargames also paved the way for today's role-playing wargames by beginning the process of exploring in depth how armies operated in the field.

I hope we can begin to bury the old debate of "games vs. simulations" and recognize we now have two healthy strands in our hobby: competitive wargames and role-playing wargames. While I think your statement "Nothing drives off gamers faster than junk," is correct the definition of "junk" may be slightly different depending on whether we are talking about a competitive wargame or a roleplaying wargame,

A competitive wargame could be considered "junk ' if there is a "perfect plan" in the game or the game's victory conditions are unbalanced. Just because a game has "simple rules" does not make it a good competitive wargame.

A role-playing wargame could be considered "junk" if the units in the game perform actions that historically they were not capable of performing or if the game does not make the player face at least some of the key decisions faced by the historical leaders in the campaign or battle. Just because a game has "complex rules" does not make it a good role-playing wargame.

Both competitive and role-playing wargames require good development and playtesting, but the goals of development and playtesting may be substantially different for the two types of games. The two types of games may also appeal to two different types of players, although many wargamers I know (including myself) play both competitive and role-playing wargames. I personally rejoice that we have a hobby that can offer people such a variety of gaming experiences.