STRATEGY WARGAMING
ARTICLE SW_001

WARGAMES VS. WARGAMING INTERESTS

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