During the past month, The Eastern Long Island Wargamers had the chance to play three different game scenarios. The first was a largish Column, Line, and Square game played on a twenty foot long table. The second wa-s a brigade level ACW game in 25mm using Snap-Fire, an in-house rules set we are still play testing. The last was a very large pike and shot game (12,000+ points in WRG parlance) involving the Ottoman Turks with the infidels from Poland, Muscovy, and the Cossack outlands. All three games were received very well and the results set me to thinking. Why did these games "fly" while others I've designed or just played in simply flop? Generally, successful games or scenarios are inherently simple. Not simple- minded, just simple. The rules did not take a cryptonalyst to decipher and the game objectives were straight forward. The value of this is that the players were able to concentrate on generalship, not gamesmanship. Moreover, even though in each game some discussion about rules did occur, in fact, they were quick and gentlemanly in nature. A second quality of these scenarios was that everyone who played was involved in a level of action that seemed important to the outcome of the game. Have you ever been in a game which goes blissfully along except that it is not taking all of the players with it? "Hold until relieved" comes the order - yet the enemy looks at your position with disdain, passes you by, and leaves you to get the refreshments. Unless the player happens to have some inordinate fear of pushing little lead soldiers into the fray, this seems mighty boring. In the CLS game, every player had infantry, cavalry, and artillery to push. Every player was involved in every round of play and at least two of the four players on each team had something critical to do. During the ACW game everyone was again involved from the outset of the game. One interesting side feature of this game was that everyone has committed themselves in our group to raise some 25mm troops for the period. Even though two of us provided 80% of the castings used, nonetheless everyone pushed something that was his own unit or units. As a side issue, I find that the sense of ownership a person has in his own figures enhances the pleasure derived from the play. Once again, in the best traditions of amateur wargaming, and violating every rule of good generalship, about 90% of our troops moved to engage in the first turn. It almost seems that the artificiality of the four hour game forces people to behave in less than military fashion. The last action involved a massive pike and shot action. Before we even approached the table to set up terrain or put out troops, a list was created for each of four divisions within the two armies. The computer list featured troop types, weaponry, morale grade, and numbers and strangely enough, even though I was not keeping a running tally, was not more than one percent off for the entire list of more than 6,000 WRG points for both sides. The terrain was laid down and the troops pulled from the collections and assembled on large sheets of cardboard which were stored off table. A central force was placed on the table for each side as well as one "wing" consisting primarily of cavalry. The other two divisions for each side were retained to the side and diced for secretly. Neither location nor time of arrival would be revealed to the other side until the turn just before their scheduled appearance. Then the proverbial "Cloud of dust" would indicate that bad things were about to happen to the opponent. Not as many players arrived as expected for the beginning of the game. As a result, everyone pushed lead and was involved in the action from the outset. But more to the point of why I described the game as I did, the suspense created by the diced-for arrivals had everyone sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the unexpected. In fact, my right wing cavalry forward commander hesitated to engage the Muscovites to his front because he did not know where the Cossacks were. After an hour of real time had elapsed, my right wing cavalry appeared, as well as its commander who had been out buying a suit. My point is that everyone had something significant to do. Certainly not every player is going to change the course of every battle. But at least, every person who commits time to a game should feel that that time is not being wasted. Excitement Another important element to any scenario seems to me to be a sense of excitement. Is the game suspenseful? Do the rules allow for thundering charges, battlefield acts of valor, or feats of derring-do? ( I think a recently told story of several men at arms battling Bongo the. Gorilla falls into this latter category.) In each of the games we constructed a design which emphasized the element of the unexpected. In the CLS game we used off-board movement of reserves. The ACW game permitted the hidden deployment of troops in woods and behind hills. This permitted my Confederate opponent the "pleasure" of walking into a Shilohlike hornets' nest of Union infantry hidden in an overgrown woods. The pike and shot game speaks for itself. One of my most vividly recalled wargaming experiences involves playing in game run by Jimmy Arnold at an HMGS convention several years ago. The game was Waterloo refight using his Generalship rules. It was the second time I had used this system and I must have reminded Jimmy a little of Wellington, because he put me in command of the British center. The game was to cover the last hours of the battle after D'Erlon's abortive attack and saw many French and Allied units in less than outstanding shape. My brigade of guards, however, was intact and the buttress of the British right center. I viewed the battlefield with a sense of confidence and expected to watch the French demise unfold as Blucher dealt the hated "frogs" a mighty blow at Plancenoit. In fact, the only thing that unfolded was my command. My left was having some difficulty, which was reinforced by the secret information that the Dutch cavalry sitting so ominously opposite the French, had lost their nerve and would flee at the first chance. "Move to the left," a little voice kept saying. I formed the brigade up in column and attempted to pass them laterally to the front. My quick survey of the battlefield indicated no threat to this seemingly brilliant ploy. Voila! Sacre bleu! On the French turn, a cuirassier brigade activated and emerged from what Jim said was a fold in the ground. Despite my protestations that a catering table does not have folds/he permitted them to charge up onto my ridge. When the thundering charge crashed through my small force of Dutch infantry screening the front slope, it carried through to my guard infantry. I failed to roll the needed numbers for an emergency square and was ridden down. As Cleavon Little said in "Blazing Saddles", "And the rest is history," or at least one revised version of it. The moral of the story is even though I mucked up, there was generated a sense of excitement and suspense I can recall vividly six or seven years later. It was simply an excellent gaming experience despite something which happened which will be related below. Generally speaking, none of the items mentioned above can occur without someone spending time and effort to set it up. My earlier article enumerated some of the things I consciously process through before putting a scenario on the table. Without recapping, several things are readily apparent. If it is an historical game, it must be researched to reproduce the feel of the time and the parameters of the battle. Terrain needs to be laid out. Try doing the battle of Eylau with Geo-hex terrain - it can cross your eyes and drive you to drink .... not necessarily in that order. Time needs to be set aside, commanders contacted, and the intent of the game expressed clearly to all the players. This last point came up at the Waterloo game. Jim had allowed for the arrival of my erstwhile Prussian allies on the French right flank at Plancenoit Jim told the player commanding the Prussians that he had one basic goal which was to drive through the French at Plancenoit and seize the road to Paris. Jim understood this to mean a full scale assault on the village, the destruction of the French, and the placement of a large blocking force on the French line of supply. What Jim failed to know was that my friend, Bob, is a debate coach who has an ear for the exact meaning rather than the implied meaning of rules. He therefore engaged the French and on the last turn of the game, raced one stand of Uhlans onto the road. "Victory!" cried Bob. "Wrong!" replied Jim with equal emphasis. The game collapsed at this point as I indicated that the British were getting ready to make a stand outside of Brussels. The point here though, is what can happen if all of the players do not understand and buy into the game's objectives. My last thought on the matter is that no matter how well crafted a scenario might be, it will not work if the players are not compatible with each other. Some relationships can become toxic and some personalities are just plain poison in the close context of a game. We need to also recall this human element the next time we put a game together. Back to PW Review July 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 (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com