One of the biggest problems in designing a strategic game is how to incorporate the political conditions of the day. A wargame that allows the players to ignore the political realities of the day does not give the players insight into why the war was conducted as it was.

One way of modeling the political situation is through "straightjacket" or "handcuff' rules that force a player to do or not to do something specific. In Avalon Hill's Third Reich for example, to simulate the hostility between the British and French after WWI, they may not stack together. In AH's War at Sea, to simulate the Italian fuel shortage and timidity, the Axis player may activate a capital ship only on a die roll of '6'.

In SPI's S&T 80: Sicily, the Germans are forced to make two attacks on the Allied beachhead on turn one, regardless of the odds. The advantage of these rules is their simplicity: the designer can simulate the effect of the action without incorporating detailed rules. The disadvantage is players may feel too restricted: the option to do or not to do something, and suffer the consequences, no longer exists. In XTR's Great War in Europe the Germans are committed to an invasion of Belgium. They don't have the option of launching an attack against Russia while staying on the defensive in the West. The designer felt that this would unbalance the game, and that the Central Powers would tend to win by 1915-16.

A conqueror is always a lover of peace.

The other extreme is to allow players to do pretty much what they want, but make them pay for the consequences of their actions. What if the British had sent no troops to France in 1940,. using hindsight to avoid another Dunkirk? The French would have been furious, and more likely to reach an accommodation with Germany. The Vichy government might have been more active against Britain, perhaps lending the French fleet to Germany, and the British might have been regarded as unreliable allies. This might be worth it to the British, if it eliminates the threat of Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain), but it makes them think long and hard.

The disadvantage of this method is that these rules are typically more difficult to design accurately, they are more complex, and can create loopholes where unexpected and unrealistic results might occur. For example, one would not want to see Italy allied with Britain in WW2 in 1940. They were expelled from the United Nations in 1936 for their invasion of Ethiopia, and the best that could have been hoped for was neutrality. The advantage of this method is that players may gain more insight into the war, and have the opportunity to explore alternate plans. What if the Italians had reMained neutral, and the Germans were able to invade Russia six weeks earlier?

Four games with detailed political rules are Empires in Arms (Napoleonic Wars 1805-1815), Advanced Third Reich (Europe 1939- 45), Krieg! (Europe 1939-45), and Vietnam (1965-75). These games make the players think about more than just winning a battle.

Advanced Third Reich uses a detailed set of modifiers for determining most countries' reactions to invasions of other countries. Each country gets diplomatic points - they may get more or less depending on how the war is going. Swedish iron ore is of significant economic value to Germany. Sweden will be more or less cooperative depending on who controls Oslo, thus there is incentive for the Germans to get there ahead of the Allies. And if the Russians start fighting the Finns, it makes Sweden and Rumania nervous. There are many modifiers. This system works, but was a lot of work for the designer to come up with. And it's easy to overlook many events. An advantage is the players don't have to memorize many rules, they merely have to refer to chart to see the modifiers. Of course, one still has to study all the countries to see what will affect them, but this is part of learning the game.

Krieg! uses a set of cards that each list an event, its consequences, and conditions that must be satisfied to play that card. For example, the Russians can pressure the Rumanians over Bessarabia only after the Baltics are annexed; the Baltics can only be annexed if the Finnish Winter Border War card has been played. An alternative Axis strategy is to leave the minor Balkan countries alone and prepare for Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of western Russia in 1941) by playing Mobilize cards. There is a progression that must be followed to get from A to B. This system is simple, and all the effects of the political decision are listed on the cards so there are not many special rules and modifiers to have to remember. It's a simple way of giving the players the ability to make strategic decisions without having to have a complex set of rules to cover all this.

The disadvantage is the arbitrary timing. One card must be played each quarter, so you can't do two unrelated things at the same time, and you can play the card only at a set time. You can't try to pick up an ally and play an Ultimatum card. The Russians can not Mobilize and pressure Rumania. If an opportunity presents itself, the Germans can't play a the No Retreat card in the middle of the season.

Empires in Arms - countries have political stability and risk collapse if this stability level drops too low. The stability is raised by successful alliances, taking territory and winning wars. It is lowered by losses, losing territory and breaking of alliances. There is a chart of modifiers as a play aide. One of the advantages of this system is that it discourages a player from playing his country as if he were an impartial, detached ruler immune to the needs of his people. Fighting to the last man can be a disaster, leading to an unconditional surrender.

Vietnam - the American player has some handcuffs: he may not invade North Vietnam, he must fight the war from the mindset of the pentagon brass in 1965 (no hordes of small teams of special forces sweeping the countryside), and he is stuck with terribly corrupt, incompetent SVA leadership. But he has considerable leeway as to how to fight the war. He may invade Cambodia or bomb the north from day one. He can build the MacNamara line, or he can build up faster. The constraint on each player is national morale. If the American declares a free fire zone, it' will hurt his morale and boost that of the North Vietnamese (in essence making them hate the Americans more, and more determined to fiaht till the bitter end). If he commits more forces, it will help the morale of the South Vietnamese but lower that of the folks back home. Every action affects everyone's morale. A military victory may not be worth the headache in loss of morale (the public, seeing villagers burned to death on TV, doesn't appreciate the victory).

Another set of games with political rules are: Hannibal (2nd Punic War), Afrika (North Africa 1940-42), and A Mighty Fortress (the Protestant Reformation). These games are simpler and use a different approach.

Hannibal - there are no political rules per say; instead, there are cards that represent political events, such as Capua or Syracuse joining Carthage, Philip V of Macedon entering the war, revolts, betrayals, etc. Each player gets between seven and nine cards, and they must decide the order they want the events to occur in. The players derive great bene it by playing these cards to maximize their gain, but they are free to ignore them if they feel another action will benefit them more. For example, the Romans receive cards that will yield reinforcements if they control certain provinces. If they don't control the province in question, they may try to capture it before playing the card. But if an opportunity to win a major battle in Spain presents itself, they may take it instead.

Afrika - the British were poised to take Tunisia from Italy in 1941, but paused to send aid to Greece. This ended in disaster, the British suffered heavy losses, and Rommel arrived and pushed the Allies back to Tobruk. In many North Africa games this mistake is forced on the Allies by requiring a set withdrawal at a given time. Since both players know this in advance, they can play accordingly.

In Afrika, one does not know when this withdrawal will occur - there is a random replacement/withdrawal chart which is consulted each turn. Eventually the British are going to have to send troops somewhere (Greece, India or Singapore), but the uncertainty adds to the game.

But one aspect that is not covered is the arrival of Rommel himself. Because the Axis know when Rommel and the Afrika Korps will arrive, they will act accordingly. The best strategy for them is to hole up in Tobruk and do nothing until Rommel joins them. This is a problem with every North Africa game that starts in 1940 ... there are no political consequences to the Italians doing this, despite the fact that Mussolini would never have allowed it. The solution is to either start games on this subject after 1940, or add political rules that will force or encourage both players to act in a way consistent with their superiors' wishes.

A political problem thought of in military terms eventually becomes a military problem.

War is the mother of everything.

War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.

A Mighty Fortress - each player has a set of victory cities, located both inside and outside his home , country.

There are no explicit rules about who one can ally with (other than Catholic vs. Lutheran), but this is built into the victory conditions. The Turks need the cities in the Hapsburg Empire, so there is no point to them not fighting. The players have some latitude in their objectives because they can select one of four sets of objectives at the start of the game. Thus the English and the French will always be rivals, but the degree of competition and hostility can be lessened or intensified.

A-Political

The following games do not have political rules, and allow some very ahistorical events to occur:

Campaigns of Julius Caesar (in Gaul) - the reason Caesar was allowed to begin his campaigns was to help defend the Roman allied tribes against the predations of the Helvetti. But in the game, the best strategy is to ignore them and rapidly subdue the entire western half of the country. This works well as d game strategy, but would have been a political disaster for the Romans. Initially the Roman Senate would not have allowed Caesar free reign to carve out such a power base.

1776 - all American losses can be allocated to the militia. Thus the Continental Army suffers losses only if the entire stack is eliminated, or during winter attrition. And since militia "reenlists" every quarter, there is no reason not to launch them in suicide attacks at then end of each quarter. Historically this would have alienated the militia and hurt the American cause. Many games have this flaw, where all losses can be allocated by the owner as he/she sees fit.

War in the East - the Russians, using hindsight, can abandon the country and retreat deep into the heartland, to a defensive position running from Leningrad to Moscow to Rostov. The Germans are restricted by the slow advance of the rail net, and by the time they approach Moscow, the Russians are entrenched, and have concentrated huge numbers of troops. The problem is that the historical participants did not know what would happen. To immediately abandon one's country without a fight would have had huge political costs, including destroying the morale of the military and populace.

This same tactic can be used by the French in Great War in Europe. They can withdraw rapidly to keep their army alive; after two turns they get their mobilized forces, and the German combat bonus is lost. But the French would never have abandoned their country without a fight, especially at the beginning of the war when both sides were untried. A handcuff rule would be simple to create, something along the lines of: units within X hexes of the front may not retreat during the first N turns; or they may retreat only one hex.

A political rules system might involve national morale. For each unit that retreats more than one hex during the first N turns there would be a morale penalty. Instead of mandatory attacks, there would be a morale drop for each unfulfilled attack.

From my experience, I prefer the detailed political rules. If they are well thought out and well researched, they can help give me an insight into why things happened. If I disagree, I can tinker with them. An abstracted rule is harder to tinker with because one is not sure what else it represents.

Playability is usually not affected by either method because there are usually not many political decisions to be made each quarter, and the movement of the pieces takes much more time.

At the strategic level one can also add an economic model to handle scarce resources like oil. And also manpower availability must be factored in. Starting in 1943, many of the participants in WW2 started suffering manpower shortages. But this is not reflected in most games, like Third Reich. In those games all units are bought with generic resource points, so the loss of 250,000 men at Stalingrad can be made up by not building 500 tanks! Krieg! and Trial of Strength differentiate between manpower points and tank/armament points. But this is a topic for another article.