Yes, Wally, there is a die roll but a modified die roll. Once again, dear subscriber (are there any over-the-counter sales for this rag?), in his editorial, Walter has gone on his no-matter-what-it-all-comes-down-to-a-die-roll crusade. Everything Walter stated is correct as far as it goes (though I certainlv did not give the French a +3 on a 6d). Using Walter's example, on a 6d the French are +3 and the Prussians are 0 / Straight up, it is a pretty grim picture for the Prussians. But let's further suppose that You modify the die +1 for each additional unit attacking a single enemy unit. or +2 for cavalry vs. infantry or infantry vs. infantry in square, or -2 for being in column. etc. Now, even at +3 on a 6d the situation looks mildly interesting and the Prussian player, though odds against it, can imagine the possibility of winning. If Wally understands the above. which I know he does, then what is he trying to say? Actually, he apparently has two problems with Napoleonic rules, which to him are embodied in the evil Empire. I think his first problem is the use of the word "simulation" rather than 'game' or `wargame'. He believes that the word simulation implies a legitimacy, a claim to realism which mimiatures wargames cannot claim and do not deserve. In this regard, I disagree. While they are often used interchangeably. simulation and wargame are not synonomous. I think Walter's first probIem is that rules described as simulations are often difficult to understand and more trouble than fun to play. Fair or not, I think the Lion equates the use of simulation with the lack of playability because designers who use the word often resort to complex and convoluted mechanics (establishing their Napoleonic bona fides). Walter is too harsh when he decries the use of the word.. simulation. Wargames can of course not simulate a battle, but they can simulate some of the events which result and problems which were faced by those who were involved. Indeed. even Walter's games. though perhaps not very accurate. are simulations. This leads to Walter's second problem which is that rules which take on the mantle of simulation often resort to highly complex mechanics in order to earn or deserve the word 'simulation.' I agree with Walter. In this regard, minatures rules designers are behind the high tech curve. Years ago, board wargame designers learned that complexity does not define an accurate simulation and that an accurate simulation, more often than not, simple rather than complex, especially in its game mechanics. Indeed, the cutting edge in game or simulation design is to design games in which the mechanics do not interfere with the players' decisions but rather define and influence their decisions. The ultimate truth may be that it is worse to "over simulate" than "under simulate". To simuIate everything is to simulate nothing because no game which simulates everything could possibly be played and no lessons or enjoyment could, therefore, possibly be gained from such a game. Back to PW Review January 1990 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com