Last month I discussed the futility of a standard set of rules for wargaming. This month I will try to discuss some alternatives to fixing your rules OR tablets of gold and worshipping at their altar which certain groups, certainly not yours or mines appear to do. The best or optimum rules are the ones agreed to by the players involved. Given complete freedom the rational wargamer will maximize his Utility (enjoyment) by ch08ing the best rules for himself or, since negotiation is necessary, for all concerned. If inequities exist, as sometimes occur in all market places due to unequal bargaining power or information, we must trust that the total utility is still greater than an imposed set of rules. If an imposed set were to be optimum it would be chosen by the participants.
If there is anything they would both make the same change to it is certainly suboptimum. To minimise regret and obtain a local optimum, any imposed set of rules must allow change, revision, deletion, and amendment by mutual consent.
Procedures should exist to make equal or near equal bargaining power and knowledge of alternatives available. I submit that a significant factor in war ie to force the enemy to fight on ground of your choice and to refuse battle until this is feasible. The terrain, or table-top features, are not the only "ground" that is negotiable in wargaming. "Generalship" can be an interesting factor in determining the rules to be used. You may not have recognised it, but it is in fact a factor in deciding who wins the battles you fight right now. Think - aren't the best (Most Successful) players developing the rules? They add, modify, and delete rules that they alone fully comprehend or use. Fair rules must expose this effect and attempt to equalise bargaining power.
As a first approximation, why not let the opponents decide on rules they wish to use before every battle. In a tournament this may take some time but it will be well spent and save time during the actual play of the game and allow a truer evaluation of skill when both players are on partially familiar ground or at least ground of their own choice. If disagreements arise while settling on rules, horse-trading may solve the problem. "Well, if you accept my modified morale rule, I'll take your rules on bonus-moves and saving throws."
If this fails, any system of penalties the organisers or club leaders choose will come into play. Disqualification, fines, public disapproval, strength reduction competitions (often used to chose sides in an unbalanced wargame, competitors bid to see who will give up the most in order to get the side he wants. If A will only give up one squadron while B bids two in order to win his point, B wins and gives up the force he pledged), or just the dysfunctional effects of prolonged disputation will settle the argument. With proper mediation no wargamer will give up an opportunity to play because of a petty rule dispute.
As a second approximation of acceptable alternatives to standard rules, a framework or outline can be constructed which almost all players will agree is acceptable. It is hard to visualise a wargame without a set of movement rules, firing rules, melee rules, morale rules (if no morale rules are stated it is merely the equivalent of a rule saying all troops are heroes who fight to the death - superguards), and conditions of victory. Many alternatives for each step in the outline and a specified order for applying each rule could be prepared by a club or tournament c bmmittee. Wide experience, a large library of wargame rules, knowledge of historical capabilities of troops, estimates of the ability of the participants t 0 grasp unfamiliar rules and probably the participation either by mail or in person of some or all of the competitors in setting up the alternatives to plug into the outline would be necessary.
This effort, however complicated, would seem to me to be one of the most pleasurable aspects of setting up a game or tournament. Scheduled opponents would chose before playing which modules they want to fit into each point in the outline.
As a third approximation of optimum rules, I suggest that two players merely start playing, by any set of rules either is familiar with, and quite possibly with different Bets or no rules at all other than a moderate familiarity with the capabilities of the troops. At any point at which a dispute arose which could not be rerolved by the players after a reasonable length of time, a judge or random factor (die roll, turn of a card, or fist fight) will decide the result which probably should remain binding for the rest of the game. However it would certainly be an interesting experience to play a game where the rules change during the game at the will of one or both players, or as chance dictates. With reasonable players (I'm sure I'm reasonable, and for the sake of argument I'll accept that you are reasonable, but we both know that fellow over there is crackers) who compete primarily for companionship and the fun of play, rules are not only not necessary but even a positive hindrance to a good game.
Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 104
To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1970 by Donald Featherstone.
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