INTRODUCTION

Wargames are found in use in many organizations and societal groups. In such they exist in
many forms and levels of complexity. Key to understanding these differences are to look to
their underlying purpose of the participants. Essentially all wargames fall into two categories.

Firstly there is what I call the “educational” game. These games look to the future and based
on hypotheses of how new weapons may function. The game seeks to evaluate hypotheses
to determine the viability of weapons and or combat philosophies. Alternatively the games
may be part of a collection of training tools. Usually to enable a military become more
proficient in the practice of war. Then finally it could be a means to investigate past historical
events. In this case the playing of the game teaches a level of understanding of a past
military system or situation. The dominating characteristic of al of these is that they aim to be
simulations and deliberately attempt to mimic reality as closely as possible. The primary
determinate of their worth is that the simulation produces accurate and reliable results.
Whether the players actually enjoy playing these games is not a key factor.

Secondly there is what I call the “recreational” game. These are mainly the social games of
the amateur wargaming fraternity. They create scenarios and test players’ ability to outwit
their opponent within that scenario. Mostly these are competitive games which use a
standard scenario whereby two equal, but different, forces oppose each other on a semi
random terrain setting. These games can range from a relatively high level of simulation to
what is little better than rolling marbles to knock over toy soldiers. The only real measure of
such games is that the participating players enjoy the experience of the game.

These rules are intended as a recreational activity. However they are consciously focussed
to the niche of war gamers that have an interest in history and not only seek to play games
as a form of entertainment. So while the game is recognised as primarily a recreational
activity it should tend to the simulation side of the spectrum. As it leans to simulation it
provides opportunity for an educational element. Either as an explicit intent of the game – for
example the game is based on a historical setting or even as a random game where players
can challenge their opponents’ level of thinking. As a consequence there is a need to design
and formulate the rules at a much deeper intellectual level than that of the game.

*** Rules of play *** pg 3 ***

Simulation and reality

While the word reality is often bandied about in wargames rules, the reality is that there is no
“reality”. The players’ commitment is at a much more superficial level and certainly no player
seeks to actually get shot in a game. However this issue of “reality” needs to be considered
from two aspects.

Firstly there is the aspect of the “reality” of the game events. The full complexity of the
process is not manageable in the typical one-player per side situation. Many of the key
processes are also simplified to make the game manageable. This especially applies to
issues such as logistics. No player really needs to draw up plans and orders to ensure
enough replacement boots and jackets etc are available after the battle.

The key issue in most games aiming to be a simulation is that the rules seek to mimic real
life events. A player will go through actions and be faced with similar challenges or decisions
as a historical predecessor. In this it means each game mechanism needs to describable as
a real life event. What is problematic is that the player, while representing a single individual
(i.e. the senior commander) is often called upon to make interpretations and decisions as if a
minor commander. This materially reduces the notion of simulation as there is a problem of
what real life event is being simulated when the player makes decisions for multiple
commanders, who coincidently all decide to make complementary decisions just at the same
and correct time.

The second aspect of “reality” is the perception of what was the “reality” in the period. This is
fundamentally the issue that designers must explain. Ultimately the rules reflect the
perceptions of the rules designer and what they believe are the relevant or key features of
the period of warfare. These should be explained so that players can assess the rationality
that underlies particular rules. For example these rules are much more heavily weighted on
issues of command and control than may be the norm. This is because I believe this is the
key element of this period. When all is considered the effectiveness of sword, lance,
bayonet, cannon and musket are so similar it leaves little opportunity to explain historical
outcomes. While some nations perform exceptional well in this period, they also perform
exceptionally poorly in earlier and later periods. The idea of “national characteristics”
imparting automatic “natural” success or superiority clearly has little substance. So I am
looking to the mechanisms of how essentially similar troops with the same weapons were
able to achieve more than their opponents. That I believe is the capacity of commanders and
the execution of their command responsibilities. Ultimately the rules are a model of what I
perceive to be the key elements that shaped battle in this period of history.

Discourse
What is also an intention of these design notes is to try creating an environment of critical
discourse on war game design. In particular to try formulate a vocabulary of the systems and
techniques of wargames and the emotional and intellectual responses of gamers.