On Criticism

The letters column of Operations #5 was rather interesting. No matter how many times I've seen it, I still find shocking the sort of dogmatism displayed in Mr. Pond's letter and indicated by such phrases as "correct solution to the problems," and "had long ago been considered and solved..."

For many of us, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is more important than their attainment, and a willingness to consider carefully other points of view is essential. If Mr. Pond carefully considered CWB's forest effects, or Mr. Powell's article in OPS #1, OR his prior conversation with Mr. Blankenship, OR his own position on the matter, it is not evident in his "very compelling" letter (as Mr. Blankenship was kind enough to characterize it; I would say, rather, that Mr. Pond is exactly the sort of writer for whom it should be illegal to own a thesaurus). Still, Mr. Pond is entitled to his opinion. I remind him only that it is and opinion.

I'd like to commend you for your insight into the forest matter and for daring to break with tradition. I would like to share with you two paragraphs that have become among my favorite quotes. Immanuel Velikovsky, who knew his share of "scholarly" criticism, said in the closing remarks of an address to the Princeton Graduate College Forum in 1953:

All the fruitful ideas have been conceived in the minds of the nonconformists, for whom the known was still unknown, and who often went back to begin where others passed by, sure of their way. The truth of today was the heresy of yesterday.

Imagination coupled with skepticism and an ability to wonder-if you possess these, bountiful nature will hand you some of the secrets out of her inexhaustible store. The pleasure you will experience in discovering truth will repay you foryour work; don't expect other compensation, because it may not come. Yet dare.

Keep the faith. You are not alone.

Interest Rekindled

Twelve years ago I quit wargaming in disgust over the state of the wargaming industry. Mainly it was over the lack of direction most of the companies seemed to have had and the utter disdain with which they treated their customers. Since an invite to a PBM Diplomacy game, I haverekindled my interest in wargaming. I took some time to become reaquainted with the industry and would like to express some concerns.

Last week I attended Gen Con/Origins '92 and was rather dismayed by whatI foresee as a lack of direction by the industry. Yes everyone has jumped on the role-playing band wagon and the number of them overwhelms me. But the lack of true marketing by everyone frightens me. In my closet are numerous SPI games collecting dust for lack of opponents, lost interest, and lack of errata. They aremonuments to alostindustry giant. Yet SPI may soon have companions. Simply stated, where is the industry going? Every booth was showing off it' s latest gem and ignoring the novice gamer completely.

Though there are entry level garnes available, no one wants to waste his time talking to the novice. That was readily apparent to my companions, all of whom are novices. While I could hold the conversation of the representatives in the booths, my companions were usually cut short for "more interesting" talk. If our hobby is to continue, we must attract new people to expand the horizons and provide sales growth.

The whole experience seemed to reflect that everyone is trying to imitate a certain company and its absolute rules for the adult games market. There are magazines for just about every major game company. And all they seem to provide is propaganda for their product line. This is done by limiting topics to only new and more advanced scenarios or play-by-play articles that only the most experienced gamers in the field can understand. One of my companions summed up her confusion with "How do you know what to buy?"

What does make a magazine different from the other propaganda sheets? Is it that it has a games rating chart which includes the competition's products? Remember most of the articles are about its games and thusly the readers have a bias. How do they distribute the magazine to the casual or first-time buyer? Do they still have to walk into a hobby shop that happens to carry that magazine or line of games, or through word of mouth? What is there to attract the first-time buyer? Where does the parent company see itself in five or ten years? Am I confused about the purpose of the magazine? Is the magazine supposed to introduce me to the games or vice versa? Is the SPI cycle to be repeated indefinitely?

Most companies know the type of games they want to produce, but most are produced without any fanfare except through the "house magazine". Who learns about a new game other than devoted fans and overburdened dealers who have to trim inventory somewhere. Understandably, some companies do wish to limit their size and market penetration, but how long can a "niche market" industry survive?

If there is to be involvement of new people to the hobby then there should be something to attract them. Yet I see no marketing done on a major scale (except for a certain fantasy roleplaying game) or information of any type available outside of game stores. Does literature or services exist that one can learn of and about the industry? I am talking about the novice here, not an old warhorse like myself who knows enough to begin again.

Forest Modifiers

Since your company is new to me. I just learned about the woods modifier controversy within your Civil War game system. Hopefully, you can take one more opinion. [Ed . Note: Sure, he says, gripping the axe handle tighter and gritting his teeth...]

Fire combat during the Civil War was still based on the "massed fire" principle. Normally, the "attacking" side would march at the "defending" side, with the defender beginning to fire at some point. The attacker would, when casualties began to mount, decide it must stop closing the gap between the forces and either charge (close combat) or begin to retum fire. Depending on the terrain, that distance could vary. Even in "open" terrain, there would be ravines, gullies, fences, stonewalls, and the like which would allow the attacker to get close to the defender without taking "excessive" casualties.

The few cases where there were a high percentage of casualties in a short amount of time in fire combat, there were either two "high morale" brigades in open terrain (such as Brawner's Farm), or one side was outnumbered, unsupported, and flanked. Therefore, I don't believe the amount of casualties in the various battles will give any meaningful numbers in determining the effect of forest/woods.

The difference I see between "forest" terrain and "open" terrain is that it was extremely difficult to keep a formation together in the forest.Yes enemy units would fight at a smaller distances apart, but such battles would either become melees (and fall under the Close Combat rule) or fire combat between individuals, each seeking his own cover. Any massed fire would be in "open fields" within the forest. Therefore, any small-arms fire in a true forested hex would be at a slower rate with the target partially protected. As for artillery, most artillery would be sent to the rear because artillery was ineffective in the woods.

I believe the best way to simulate fire combat in forest hexes is to shift one column in the defender' s favor (left) whenever the firing unit is in a forest hex. This rule will also lessen any tendency for units to form just inside the woods to fire into "open" terrain, which I also believe to be unrealistic.

Design Complexity

Bravo to the views expressed by Mr. Leggat and Mr. Demko in OPS #6! Each expressed very eloquently the view that complexity of systems is not required for a challenging simulation. This reality has guided my wargaming for many years, but especially in recent years where age has increased and available time has radically decreased.

My wargaming began with Gettysburg (the 1958 version), proceeding through the AH classics, S&T, SPI, and up to today's plethora of companies, titles, and personalities. In those early days, most games were played. There were fewer games, yes, but they were also easier to learn and easier to relearn and replay. The technical advances of today are marvelous-graphics, counters, maps. Rules, on the other hand, have gone berserk-both in regard to inclusions (subsystems and chrome) and exclusions (read here "errata"). The industry appears to have encouraged the layering of detail for detail's sake, creating incredible complexity in the name of realism or simulation.

How many games gather dust on the shelves because the rules look like the Federal Register or the IRS Code? Many designers must believe that more is inherently better-representing more accurate data, greater information, and therefore a necessarily superior product. Sometimes consumers do; often they do not.

Here, I must admit my guilt. On my shelves too, rest numerous games I have purchased with knowledge they will never beplayed. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Demko's suggestion that a game should be played against the opponent-not against the rules. In fact, that is one reason I purchased Stalingrad Pocket.

Mr. Leggat's comments on Panzergruppe Guderian and Napoleon's Last Battles-Napoleon at Waterloo are directly on point. The "complexity" of a game should be in its situation, the strategies, the tactical challenges and options-not in the rules. Correct complexity gives players the ability to concentrate on the game rather than on a host of detailed sequences and subsystems. Such a game can be played more often, providing players the opportunity to try different strategies or play different sides. A game is not "simple" or simplistic because the rules are short or straightforward. Imagine-a game which one can easily play over several days because the rules can be remembered from day to day!

Panzergruppe Guderian and its progeny are one example of an adaptable system that can cover many situations well, while maintaining a basic structure that allows a player to delve into many games with a minimum of study. See much errata for these games? Kharkov, Cobra, the Ardennes Quad-all solid games. Even Drive on Stalingrad (with the errata) is a manageable game becausethebasic system is sound. I played Case Green by teaching the rules to my opponent (an experienced gamer) in about ten minutes. Could that be done with Trajan, Chad, Franco-Prussian War or a host of other games?

Napoleon's Last Battles is another one of the great designs, which, in my opinion, has not had enough offspring. Many more Napoleonic battles could be treated with this system. I played Vittoria because of its Napoleon at Waterloo character. Will I ever play the companion game Freidland, probably not-needless complexity. I even bought a new game recently when someone described it as "Napoleon's Last Battles goes to." I knew I could get into the game without days of study.

Is it a surprise that TSR republished Napoleon's Last Battles, Cobra, Drive on Stalingrad, and the Ardennes Quad? No, because these are solid, playable games. Yes, they also reissued the far more complex Wellington's Victory and Terrible Swift Sword, but these too, although not my personal preference, have a following and they work in playing as games.

This is not to suggest that recent years have been devoid of elegant and playable garnes. The Battles for North Africa series has generally followed this rule, although working better in the more fluid situations of Decision at Kasserine, O'Connor's Offensive, and Bloody Keren. The vast difficulties with Race to Tunis were not from flaws in the basic system. Similarly, the system of Monty's D-Day and Warsaw Rising added innovation without unmanageable complexity.

Let me not suggest that designers must only serve my constituency. Certainly those gamers who desire incredible complexity should be given their due. However, the industry should not fall into the trap of believing that such complexity is the necessary way to go, or that simpler systems cannot simulate. Designing a good game simulation with simpler rules is far more difficult than adding complexity or volumes of rules to solve design problems. Adding more words to explain is far easier than editing to reach a succinct result.

Simple to play does not mean "introductory". Keep up the good work with the SCS system.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com