A recently acquired American friend - Bob Coggins - wrote in the January issue of P.W. REWIEW an article lashing out at British writers of wargaming rules, asserting that they are the worst offenders in rule writing. In part explanation, Bob claims that we Brits have an advantage because - "the difference is their ability to write in a pleasing manner", an ability seemingly thought by Bob to be denied Americans.
Not unnaturally when first reading the article my chauvinistic instincts were aroused, because I am a Brit, two of the three offenders Peter Gilder and Bruce Quarrie are personal friends (I have never heard of George Jefferies) and because I am a British writer. Then I read it again and calmed down. After all, Bob hadn't mentioned me personally by name nor had we even touched on the subject during many hours of happy socializing in Chicago in early February (just after the article appeared but before I had seen it). Then I thought that may be due to he and I having something of a rapport or because he was partly instrumental in my being invited as a guest to last years HMGS Convention in Harrisburg, when I had a wonderful time and those who paid my fare seemed happy with the outcome, but I reasoned, I haven't written any rules nor had any published - my wargaming books have never rigidly insisted in use of any specific sets of rules (I always tried to work on a 'suggestions' basis) except perhaps in SKIRMISH WARGAMING where the Blake/Colvill/Curtis rules are the only ones possible for that type of wargaming, and have long been universally accepted anyway.
Now it damned upon me, had I been writing an article on wargaming rules I would have written exactly the same criticisms as did Bob, but I would have gone much further and not restricted or strictures to those written by two particular Brits or indeed any other Brits. I would have aimed my claims of non-playability at ALL rules, at every set not written by myself. I hasten to say that such a claim is not written in any spirit of arrogance, but simply because my temperament and patience levels are such that they give rise to a mental block which prevents me comprehending or even attempting to comprehend anyone else's rules.
On the rare occasions when I find myself trapped through inevitability or politeness in someone elses's wargame, I am irritable, restless, chafing at the fog of incomprehension of rules aspects that even their ten-years old son understands. And that is why I NEVER wargame to anyone else's rules -- believing Life too short to thrash my brains without financial remuneration, nor wishing to mar by now unease the pleasure of the other players.
Could it be that Bob was prompted to write his diatribe because he has a touch of this Featherstone Syndrome? There is no evidence of it being contagious but it seems highly likely it could be catching or perhaps addictive, and, from what I have seen of him in our 9 months friendship, Bob Coggins has the confidence and the self-assertiveness to be a prime candidate for this seemingly incurable condition. If this is the ease then may I recommend the sovereign panacea that not only makes it bearable, but even a pleasure! One gathers around oneself a group of six or eight wargamers, ideally those interested in the hobby but lacking in whatever it takes to buy, paint and organise armies of their own (which inevitably means that they don't wantto write their own rules).
With this compliant gang, one indulges in Parochial Wargaming meeting regularly at one's house, fighting a battle of one's own choice, to one's own rules (which are babyishly simple and able to be used by non-wargamers from the word go. Infrequent disagreements with the rules are covered by The Challenge when the objector and he to whom he is objecting each throw a dice with the desire of the highest scorer prevailing. Oh, and of course one keeps out of other people's games.
I can assure everyone that this is the near-perfect system,, proven by trial and error resulting in the SAME sextet (give or take a few comers and goers) meeting every, Wednesday evening in my last three residences, over a period of 25 years. Oh yes, another essential is that the game ends in time to got up the road to the pub before closing time.
To assuage Bob Coggins's possible rancour in "as he construes this as an attack - I fully agree with him in his other article in the same issue that wargaming is NOT a simulation (in the dictionary sense of meaning), rather it is a positive re- creation of a set group of circumstances.
Back to PW Review March 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