This erudite, thought-provoking and biologically-stimulating paper was triggered by an exchange of letters in the British publication MINIATURE WARGAMES (No 88, Sept/90 and No 91, Dec/90). The first letter was authored by Sam Mustafa of Richmond, Virginia, who bashed away at "realistic wargaming". Said Sam, who happens to subscribe to the REVIEW, and whose opinion, therefore, cannot be ignored: ... I realized that "realism" in a wargame was a futile and self defeating notion... one side argues that weapons made all the difference; the other side that morale, training and tactical doctrine made weapons virtually unimportant. Each side... criticizes the other as being "unhistorical". A player will call a game "historically accurate" if it lives up to his prejudices and opinions about history... Quite frankly, I have given up. I now seek simple games which concentrate on playing, rather than simulating. The second letter was authored by Pat Condray, another REVIEW subscriber whose thoughts must also be given great weight. Pat took the opportunity to bash away at Sam's heretical ideas, and in doing so, made reference to such items as the "epistemological value of historical study", which frightened even me. An extremely able advocate, Pat essentially placed words in Sam's mouth, and then proceeded to show how wrong Sam was for uttering such thoughts. Pat referred to the rise of a guerilla movement championing playability over realism in historical wargaming... For a history buff, game results which consistently fly in the face of his appreciation of the history of the period set the teeth on edge. ... (Sam's viewpoint is) ... that a no nothing view of history is the best... ... ignoring ... (historical study) ... in game mechanics will not enhance playability. This was all rather interesting to me because Pat had, fairly recently, tossed the accusatory "no nothing view of history" in my direction. In my considered opinion, Sam does not really espouse, as Pat would have it, the 'no nothing' viewpoint. For example, I have in front of me Sam's latest effort in microarmor rules. I note that a Czech rocket launcher has a different fire impact than an Argentinean anti-tank guided missile. This is, to my knowledge, historically correct. I note that some vehicles travel faster than others. Again historically correct. I note that, in general, "big guns" are more effective than "little guns". Historically correct. I note that a forward observer is needed for artillery fire. Historically correct. And so on. What emerges from all this is what I term a Recognizable Pattern. All modern armor rules, if they simulate, if they mimic, if they re-create, if they reflect - use whatever term you wish - a modern armor battle ' must include a number of factors pertinent to the era, the weaponry, the tactics. How the factors are used, what their relative importance is, and what impact they have in the battle is another story... the point is that they exist and the rules make allowance for them. Sam's rules definitely include these factors... they form a Recognizable Pattern, "recognizable" in the sense that a study of the rules would immediately show that because of the inclusion of these factors, the rules were not applicable to the ancients era, to the medieval era, to the pike and shot era, etc. Pat makes reference to one such factor in his letter when he speaks of the 1866 Austro-Prussian conflict. He refers to the Austrian use of a muzzle loading rifle, the Prussian use of a breechloading rifle which could fire faster than the Austrian weapon, and that ... other things being equal, casualties were likely to be heavier and chances of victory much less for the Austrian soldier. ... (If a player) ... gets tricked into a game designed by Mr. Mustafa and finds that Austrians and Prussians tend to trade even in battalion firefights, this flagrant contradiction of all he believes... will adversely affect the playability of the game for him. In short, one of the factors making up the Recognizable Pattern of the 1866 war is to give the Prussian infantry more firepower than the Austrian. And despite Pat's misgivings, I feel certain that Sam, when he eventually gins up an 1866 set of rules, will include the firepower offset. The secondary issue of how much increased firepower for the Prussians, of course, is yet another bone to pick for the realist, who will tend to argue whatever value is chosen. Incidentally, in all of his correspondence, letters, articles, or what-have-you, Pat always refers to the 1866 Austro-Prussian War. It's my guess that he must have written his Master's thesis on the war, and cannot refrain from cashing in on the knowledge so gained. He's very conversant about it, very knowledgeable, and is always ready with an interesting anecdote of the period, such as General Paltoquet scratching his 'right buttock three times whenever he shouted "Charge!", or General Cornichon picking his nose just before he was captured by Captain Spitz's Jagers... Amazing what one can pick up when writing a thesis. But I digress... In contrast to Pat's assertions, we anti-realism advocates - note that I have placed me and Sam in the same boat - we do not wave the "no nothing view of history" banner. We read history, we love history, we respect history, and in doing so, we make allowance for the Recognizable Pattern of the era encompassed by our rules. But we also realize, however, that the factors making up the Recognizable Pattern mean all things to all people. Another way of saying this is that since my view of "realism" is not your "realism", an absolute "realism" is unobtainable. As an example, look at the Recognizable Pattern for rules for the Napoleonic era. We need cavalry to be fairly impotent when charging a square; we need canister to be more deadly at close range than roundshot; we need British rifles to fire more accurately, if slower, than French muskets; we need the firepower of the British 2-deep line to be more effective than the French 3-deep line... the list goes on and on. All Napoleonic rules contain provision for these factors; they comprise the Recognizable Pattern for the Napoleonic era, and without them, it just ain't Napoleonics. Where we, Sam and I, and the realists part company is in the quantification of the factors... whereas we're kinda flexible and reasonable, each realist, each "historical simulationist", knows what the correct numbers should be and will brook no argument on the matter. If the number isn't in line with his thinking, then, for all intents and purposes, the rules are not realistic, and therefore worthless. About a year ago, Bob Wiltrout asked me which set of Napoleonics rules I considered the most realistic, and he was taken aback when I tossed the above argument at him, stating, in effect, that I had no idea which set of rules assigned the "right" set of numbers to each of the factors pertinent to the Recognizable Pattern of Napoleonic warfare. I thought this a fairly logical and coherent approach (I still do) to a virtually unsolvable problem, and I was taken aback that Bob was taken aback. We at the Centre for Provocative Wargaming Analysis are always taken aback when others do not see the world as we do. The Theory of Recognizable Patternry: Introduction Back to PW Review April 1999 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 Wally Simon 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