Board Wargaming

When fighting out battle on the table top generated by board games, I realised there are tremendous differences between the way board games and figure gamers see war. These are a few of the differences.

1. Board games use the nebulous concept of zones of control. This implies that units sort of spread out from the hex they are in and occupy the surrounding 6 hexes or cover them by fire. In figure battles, the only way you stop the enemy moving through areas is to be in them.

2. Defenders in figure campaigns always dig in given time. Whether they use stakes, wire, redoubts, trenches or just bundles of sticks, time multiplies the defensive potential of a position. Few board games allow units that do not move to entrench.

3. In figure games, combined arms attacks are crucial. In Napoleonic warfare the ideal attack involves infantry, cavalry and artillery. Some board games use a combined arms multiplier, most do not. It is not just the strength of the units attacking, it is the combination that is crucial.

4. The relative position of the units in the attack is crucial. In board games, the key is usually to get the most strength points into the assault by placing in adjacent hexes in any order. In figure games it is often important to get the units involved to attack from the right direction, in the right order.

5. Some of the combats resolved in board games just never happen on the table top. Infantry armies cannot bring mechanised forces to battle, if the more mobile defenders trade space for time.

This raises some fundamental questions about the nature of figure and board games. Are board games gross simplifications of warfare? Could board games be made more realistic by use of modifiers such as +1 for combined arms, units stationary for two turns get +2 defensive bonus (some do). Why do board games modelling the same campaigns at identical scales all have different modifiers? (e.g. compare games on two of the most popular topics, Battle of the Bulge or Waterloo board games). Are figure games inherently superior?

There are wargames and, then, there is wargaming ! In my opinion, the two are definitely related but in no way synonymous…. Invariably, wargames are marketed by publishers and are conceived of and developed by various types of specialists. Wargaming is what hobbyists ACTUALLY DO with published wargames.

As far as I am concerned, a wargame is essentially an ABSTRACT MODEL focussing on armed conflict the specific implementation and features of which allow certain types of wargaming to take place within its confines.

In the last 40 years or so, three broad classes of wargames have made their successful debut: miniature, board and computer/console ones. Computer/console wargames have inherited many attributes, outlooks and approaches historically associated with their other two, somewhat older cousins…..

Wargaming comprises quite a few types of hobbyist interests in many combinations and varying proportions. Here are the main ones:

1) MILITARY HISTORY is an old standard bearer here. Depictive, representational and, even, symbolic fidelity to the dicta of historical research are the key concerns of the professional as well as amateur military historian.

2) STRATEGY is another oldie interest. Competitive, interactive play to WIN (or, not lose) is the definite focus here.

3) IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE (and content) is a relatively new kid on the block or so we believe. Role playing and audio-visual effect “fests” rule the roost here but not to the exclusion of many other things…..

There has been a long standing feud between military history and strategy focussed wargaming. This has led to the appearance, adoption and use of labels such as “strategy wargamer” and “historical wargamer”. To their credit, the more thoughtful and consistent “historical wargamers” have abandoned all references to “warGAMING” in favour of “SIMULATING war(fare)” or “SIMULATING conflict”. These hobbyists have come to the realisation that “strategy gaming” considerations are a direct threat to the main purpose of military history focussed wargaming, namely, the accurate re-enactment of historically recorded armed conflict and, perhaps, the “scientific modelling” of carefully chosen, “realistic”, BUT historically counterfactual (”what if”) armed conflict variations.

Unfortunately, quite a few “historical wargamers” (i.e., “grognards”) appear to be using the term “wargame” as being synonymous with “historically accurate war(fare) simulation”. Similarly, the term “wargamer” is viewed by them to be synonymous with “historically accurate conflict simulationist”. “Grognards” tend to frown upon just “historically inspired” wargaming. Furthermore, they are very very much into “historical accuracy” AND “historical realism”, terms that they use interchangeably….. Finally, they consider “strategy gaming” considerations to be subordinate to “historical concerns”, YET they do not want to do away with such “gaming” completely. Unless one is, himself, a “grognard”, it is virtually impossible to effectively communicate with many such hobbyists….

In general, wargames reflect market and marketing realities. I am NOT going to second guess here the economic efficiency of the underlying markets and the economic signals that wargame purchases send to the various wargame producers/developers. However, it may be a good idea all around NOT to discuss wargames (particularly the ones exhibiting some connection with historical warfare) “in toto” but rather from one or more particular HOBBYIST points of view…. Many misunderstandings can be avoided if hobbyists are sensitised to the fact that a wargame by itself is a BIG NOTHING. It is only particular human interests that render such models interesting, even entertaining !!

Let us face it gentlemen ! Hobbyists whose consistent, primary interest over time is to accurately SIMULATE historical warfare are NOT gamers. They are NOT really interested in “playing” or “gaming”. They are historical warfare simulationists aiming at historically accurate re-enactment….

On the other hand, competitive strategy gaming is, fundamentally, an intensive and expansive intellectual activity that knows of no historical boundaries…. Invariably, prevailing over a skilled (human ?) opponent requires considerable creativity and pushing the “game system” to the limit. Ahistorical or historically counterfactual results tend to be the rule rather than the exception much to the dismay, even horror, of pure historical simulationists who seek re-enactment rather than intellectual victory over another (human ?) player….

To conclude, I would imagine that quite a few of you would tear SSI’s original Panzer General (DOS) to shreds as far as historical warfare simulations go. I mean, there would be a long litany of historical fidelity shortcomings associated with both the title’s engine and the 38 scenaria native to the game. Fair enough ! BUT, the same engine COULD be utilised within the context of custom scenaria that are specifically designed for all-human play and not for easy victories against the hapless “programmed opponent”…. The intellectual challenge could be considerable provided one wears the hat of a “strategy wargamer” rather than that of a “historical conflict simulationist”.

Gentlemen, I believe that “strategy wargaming” and “historical warfare re-enactments” just CANNOT be conceptually and procedurally reconciled and better be left as separate hobbyist approaches (possibly utilising the VERY SAME wargames, nonetheless) !

Ok, then, next time someone tells us something about wargame X or Y it would be nice to expand into the kinds of WARGAMING that he thinks these wargames are well suited for, right ?

The author, Panos Stoucas, is a long time all-human strategy wargaming enthusiast and is currently the “Facilitator” of the PG (DOS) PBEM RESEARCH CENTRE. He can be reached at pstoucas@istar.ca

Well, I am looking for a bit of help here.  I have the SPI game of The Battle of Corinth and Jackson at the Crossroads (Cross Keys & Port Republi  c). This is a double game in one box that I bought many moons ago from a second hand games dealer at a games fair in Edinburgh. The guy selling it did make me aware that the game was incomplete and it turned out that all the components are there for both games except the mapsheet for Jackson at the Crossroads. I have played the Corinth game on a number of occasions but can’t play the Jackson game.What I would like to know, is there is anyone out there in cyberspace who might have this missing map perhaps in a game that you no longer play and would be prepared to let me have it. I am happy to pay a reasonable price including postage if you are happy to sell it to me.

I look forward to hearing from you.

I suppose that there won’t be many who will remember the well loved actor Deryck Guyler, especially outside of the UK.  Well, he was a very accomplished comedy actor who was popular just after the second world war and who went on to become one of our best loved characters in a number of sitcoms namely, Sykes, where he played the part of Constable Turnbull (alias Corky) which ran for 20 years from 1960 and in the TV series Please Sir! where he is probably best known for being the cantankerous school caretaker Norman Potter. Claiming to be an ex- Desert Rat, Potter would often complain about class ‘Five C’ and their ‘dreadful behaviour’. He also had a starring role alongside the Beatles in A Hard Days Night. He passed away at the age of 85 in 1999 after emigrating to Australia.

Well, for those of you who do remember him there is one thing that you may not be aware of and that is, he was an avid wargamer. He was not a board wargamer but a miniature gamer and had a huge collection of model soldiers. He was a founding member of the Society of Ancients, a group of wargamers specialising in the Classical Era. Very active in the society in its early years, being elected its first president in 1966, he was later made an honorary life president of the society.  Well I thought I would share that little snippet with you in case you may be interested.

Once again I have failed my readers by being off site for quite a while and I offer my apologies.  Life for our family has been hard the past three years as we lost my Father-in-law in February 2007 and had all the trauma of trying to deal with my Mother-in-law who was suffering from dementia and was in a nursing home. Very sadly, after a bad fall that resulted in a broken hip, she passed away on 6 June this year.  It puts things into perspective when you lose somebody so special and blogging and playing wargames fades to insignificance.  But, as they say, life goes on and although the pain and grief remains it’s time to move on and get back to what I enjoy and my enjoyment is boardwargaming.

In a previous blog I reported that I had set up an old favourite, FULDA GAP, however, after set up, things just got in the way and I never started the scenario and ended up putting it back in the box unplayed. I am starting to get my motivation back and plan to set up another game soon so will let you know how things progress.

Sorry for my absence to those who take time to read my pages, and I know there are a huge number especially in the US and I appreciate your interest.