PANZER GENERAL (DOS) PBEM RESEARCH CENTRE
ARTICLE 005

IS "HISTORICAL REALISM" A.......PIPE DREAM ?

Some of us would love to be convinced that "wargames" could be rendered highly "historically accurate". That anyone would be able to do this though is highly debatable. There are many obstacles one encounters on the road to achieving that elusive "historical realism".....

If one were to take the term quite literally, he would no longer want to apply it to "wargames". It doesn't take much of an imagination to realise that the terror and fear felt by soldiers during an actual battle could never be duplicated on a personal computer in someone's den or office. The idea is plainly ridiculous...... In any case, why would one even WANT to do that ? This is an important consideration when deciding how far one wants to go when discussing "wargame realism". War is no sport. We have been conditioned by many history books to believe certain things about historical conflicts, BUT there is SO MUCH that does NOT fit into these history books, and SO MUCH that serious historians do NOT know, never mind "wargame" designers.......

Flying soviet tanks on the eastern front are CLEARLY "historically inaccurate", BUT the more precise a game designer tries to become, the more arguments he will get from people about the lack of "realism" ! SSI's Steel Panthers family of wargame titles tries to be "more realistic" than, say, Panzer General (PG), but is it ? The fact is, there is a lot more room for error in a game design focussing on details..

The published statistics for weapons characteristics are often suspect. For instance, often the same weapon is given vastly different ratings depending on what source one consults. In fact, many World War II Soviet and Japanese weapons were never given any kind of accurate tests that one can research anyway. Consequently, one's guessing based on "reputation" or "hearsay" will be inaccurate more often than not. Even the SAME weapon performed differently depending on when and where it was made. Good examples of this are all the modifications to equipment that german manufacturers had to come up with towards the end of World War II, when many materials were impossible to procure.

The reported unit characteristics for various historical battles can also be highly suspect. War is not a neat sport where records and statistics are carefully watched and recorded. So, if one reads that the German 9th armored division was near Essen on January 3rd, 1945, a conflicting report may place them 200 km to the north on that very same day. Quite often, units that were SUPPOSED to be at a certain spot on a certain date were not even in the vicinity....... NONE of the historical documents covering the World War II era can ever be viewed as 100% accurate. Depending on which "side" the reports came from, many inaccuracies were included ON PURPOSE ! Thus, very often, things will boil down to, usually conflicting, opinions.

A wargame title CAN be decomposed into conceptual components so that some "historical accuracy" test can be performed on a per component basis. For example, customising weapons specifications to make them more "historically accurate" is a laudable objective. However, if one were to use the Steel Panthers "Battle Generator's" randomising features, the scenario workings and outcomes would STILL be historically inaccurate, the "historical accuracy" of the weapons specification component notwithstanding.... Similarly, many have voiced their all too understandable dislike of the PG (DOS) practice that allows tank units and what have you to appear in far away places without regard to logistics... Their objections are well founded, BUT, if one were to successfully change the game in this PARTICULAR regard, would this change, BY ITSELF, render a scenario "historically accurate" ? We doubt it as there are many other factors at......play !

May we suggest an interesting "research" approach then ? What if one were to start with a standard TYPE of scenario or situation provided or generated by a game title like PG (DOS). Then, the "researcher" would compile a list of "historically inaccurate" components (e.g., weapons capabilities and effectiveness, reinforcement rules and so on). Each component would then be evaluated as to the technical feasibility and practical playability of the envisaged "historical accuracy" fix. Starting with the fixes that are easier to implement first, the "researcher" would progressively introduce successive layers of "historically accurate" features. Once in a while, the "researcher" would be asking himself whether he still has some lever(s) at his disposal to "balance" this increasingly "historically accurate" picture... If he does, well, all is fine because a more component-wise, "historically accurate" scenario can STILL be competitively played and enjoyed. If he does not, he will have to ask himself the hard question of what "historically accurate" but hopelessly unbalanced play is all about......... You see, we KNOW that some historical conflicts were VERY lopsided. Trying to duplicate the RESULTS of a historical battle just may not be that interesting. In a historical re-enactment where the winner is virtually decided before play even begins, almost all GAMING fun evaporates into thin air. Thus, a PG (DOS) scenario does not have to be perfectly balanced, BUT to be HIGHLY imbalanced (like many historical battles apparently were) largely defeats the purpose of playing !

The author, Panos Stoucas, is a long time Panzer General (DOS) PBEM enthusiast and is currently the "Facilitator" of the PG (DOS) PBEM RESEARCH CENTRE. He can be reached at pstoucas@istar.ca