Boxes are historically the weakest component for game durability -- even considering that they get the most abuse.
Until fairly recently, game manufacturers almost invariably designed boxes primarily for their marketing suitability. And you still see the effects of this focus with the kind of family games you'll see in a discount store. Large flat boxes with garish print and flimsy construction may be OK for a game of Monopoly, Sorry or Barbie Fashion Show that's fated to end up in pieces before the week is out, but it's very frustrating for serious adult gamers who expect to get years of play out of their games. I used to hate the old Avalon Hill flat boxes. They just didn't hold up to much Geek carry at all. Invariably you ended up with split ends and if you tried stacking them more than a couple high you ended up with crushed boxes. If anything the old SPI plastic flat boxes were worse. The plastic would crack, the cardboard back would come off the tray part. Just awful.
On the other hand the Avalon Hill bookcase game format and the similar Bookshelf games from 3M were great -- especially when sleeved. I have some of those games that are more than 40 years old and still intact. While AH was in business I would sometimes order replacement boxes, although I rarely ahd to do so with bookcase boxes. On the other hand my Midway box is the third one (and it's fallen apart now).
One of the salutary effects of the German game influx has been to improve the overall quality of game boxes. Even back in the 1980s when I was stationed in Germany I was struck by how much better quality the German game components were. The boxes were much sturdier as a rule.
These days, while a few wargame makers still publish boxes that won't hold up to well, the majority seem to have realized that wargames have a long life-span and the box needs to be designed accordingly. Outstanding among the publishers is GMT with its heavy duty game boxes -- I like to call them the "armored box." These seem like they'll last many a trip to cons and game buddy houses. The squarish box design used by a lot of companies now such as Hasbro, Flying Frog, Fantasy Flight, Days of Wonder and others also seems pretty durable and stackable.
Showing posts with label SPI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPI. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Cemetery Hill -- Review and strategy
Cemetery Hill, the Blue & Gray quad game treatment of the Battle of Gettysburg, originally published in 1975 by SPI and republished 20 years later by Decision Games in a revised edition in 1995, had long had a reputation as one of the least successful of the series.
Units from both editions, Decision Games (1995) on top, SPI (1975) below,
Union left, Rebel right.
The Union forces are an infantry division, and cavalry and artillery brigades. The Rebel units are the two counters comprising Heth's division and F. Lee's brigade on its "ineffective" side.
Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games, which are at the brigade level, Cemetery Hill is at the division level. This was due to the particular production restrictions of the Quad game format, which allowed for no more than 100 counters. Gettysburg was simply too big a battle to fit using brigades, so the scale was bumped up to division level -- at least for the Union side. The problem with division-level Gettysburg games is that the Confederates didn't have many divisions on the field -- just 9 total -- which really doesn't give them enough maneuver units. The Rebel divisions were generally very large anyway, with 4 or five brigades except for Pickett, who had just 3 present. In contrast all the federal divisions had just 2 or 3 brigades. So in Cemetery Hill the Rebel divisions all get two counters.
Still, doubling or tripling the scale of the game units changes the character of the game considerably compared to the other quad, especially because the stacking limit was not adjusted accordingly, so some very high-factor stacks are possible. In addition there is a lot of terrain that doubles and even triples combat factors, so some hexes can have some pretty impressive totals.
Gettysburg is a very difficult battle to simulate, especially for a simple wargame, although that hasn't stopped many from trying, ever since first history-based wargame, Avalon Hill's Gettysburg. The basic problem with simulating Gettysburg is that the battle was characterized by periods of very intense fighting separated by long periods of inactivity. There were many reasons for this, but they mostly revolved around command and control issues that simple games usually pass over, so most simpler Gettysburg games see a lot more continuous action than the historical battle. Cemetery Hill is no exception.
While limited as a simulation, Cemetery Hill is not a bad game, providing some interesting choices for the game player -- although it is a bit harder for the Rebels.
The game begins at a later point than most Gettysburg games, in the afternoon just before Ewell's attack on the U.S. Eleventh Corps that sent the federal line reeling back to Cemetery Hill. The key for CSA success is to recognize that your side is winning the race to the battlefield -- but will eventually be outnumbered. Relentless aggression is your only hope to prevail. With some luck and skillful play the Confederates can rock the Union army back on its heels and never give it a chance to recover.
There are some differences between the original SPI edition and the Decision Games version. As was depressingly common with its re-issued SPI games, Decision Games introduced some errors in the reprint as well as making some changes.
From a rules standpoint, the biggest difference between the two games is the Attacker Effectiveness rule, which is optional in the original SPI version and a standard rule in the Decision Games version. Oddly, the Attacker Effectiveness rule was first introduced in Cemetery Hill, but many players believe it shouldn't be used in Cemetery Hill because it works against the Confederates too much.
My experience is that the Confederates can succeed using the AE rule at about the same rate as they do without it, so I think the pro-Union bias has more to do with the victory conditions and the general game situation. Indeed, I think the Confederate side is the more challenging side to play in all Gettysburg games. While the attacker effectiveness rule does hinder the attacker in some ways, it can also be exploited. Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games there is a high proportion of night turns (when ineffective attackers recover) to day turns. The game begins with 1 and half turns of activity, then a night turn; then four turns of daylight followed by night, then four more turns of daylight and one of night, ending with two turns of daylight. So ineffective units will have up to three opportunities to come back. In all other Blue & Gray games there's at most one chance to come back, and there are many more daylight runs on both sides of the night turn if it exists.
One critical errata to incorporate to make this true, however, is to treat Turn 3 as a Night turn in the Decision Games edition. It's a night turn in the SPI edition and there's no reason to think that it's any different in the DG edition.
There are also some map changes between the SPI version and the Decision Games version. The DG edition adds a new terrain type, "broken," to signify the terrain that triples defenders. The SPI edition rather clumsily simply printed right on the map the words "Defender TRIPLED in this hex" on the affected hexes (Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Wolf Hill, Little Round Top and Round Top). This doesn't change play, but is more aesthetic. The DG edition also prints the setup locations of the starting units on the map, which is an aid to set-up.
The DG edition also opens up the map a little on Seminary Ridge and Powers Hill by changing some hexes from Forest-Rough to simply Rough. This reduces the movement cost of the hexes from 6 movement points to 3. The affected hexes are 0908, 0409, 0410, 0901, 0902 and 1516.
The DG also has some other mistakes on the map, one minor and two major. The minor error is that the Roman numerals on two XI Corps units are transposed. The first major error is that the Union 1st Division, III Corps unit is left off the map. As this is a 19-factor unit, the Union will definitely miss it, so be sure to place it in hex 0423. The other major error is that hex 2112 is not indicated as a Union reinforcement hex, which it is.
Detail of the Decision Games map showing the Gettysburg vicinity
Hexwar.com uses the DG map for its presentation of the game, although it offers the option to play without the Attacker Effectiveness rule as a "Classic" edition of Blue & Gray. This is not an exact replica of the SPI version, though, because it uses the revised DG map.
The other differences between the two editions are cosmetic. The DG map uses superior graphics and the DG edition uses troop icons instead of the anachronistic NATO-style units symbols used in the SPI edition.
The DG edition includes three optional rules -- Strategic Movement, Cavalry Movement and Cavalry Retreat -- that should not be used in Cemetery Hill as they will throw off the game balance significantly. All favor the Union player.
I have a slight preference for the DG edition, as I like the Attacker Effectiveness rule, but I play the game both ways on Hexwar.com and own both the DG version and the SPI version as afolio game.
Units from both editions, Decision Games (1995) on top, SPI (1975) below, Union left, Rebel right.
The Union forces are an infantry division, and cavalry and artillery brigades. The Rebel units are the two counters comprising Heth's division and F. Lee's brigade on its "ineffective" side.
Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games, which are at the brigade level, Cemetery Hill is at the division level. This was due to the particular production restrictions of the Quad game format, which allowed for no more than 100 counters. Gettysburg was simply too big a battle to fit using brigades, so the scale was bumped up to division level -- at least for the Union side. The problem with division-level Gettysburg games is that the Confederates didn't have many divisions on the field -- just 9 total -- which really doesn't give them enough maneuver units. The Rebel divisions were generally very large anyway, with 4 or five brigades except for Pickett, who had just 3 present. In contrast all the federal divisions had just 2 or 3 brigades. So in Cemetery Hill the Rebel divisions all get two counters.
Still, doubling or tripling the scale of the game units changes the character of the game considerably compared to the other quad, especially because the stacking limit was not adjusted accordingly, so some very high-factor stacks are possible. In addition there is a lot of terrain that doubles and even triples combat factors, so some hexes can have some pretty impressive totals.
Gettysburg is a very difficult battle to simulate, especially for a simple wargame, although that hasn't stopped many from trying, ever since first history-based wargame, Avalon Hill's Gettysburg. The basic problem with simulating Gettysburg is that the battle was characterized by periods of very intense fighting separated by long periods of inactivity. There were many reasons for this, but they mostly revolved around command and control issues that simple games usually pass over, so most simpler Gettysburg games see a lot more continuous action than the historical battle. Cemetery Hill is no exception.
While limited as a simulation, Cemetery Hill is not a bad game, providing some interesting choices for the game player -- although it is a bit harder for the Rebels.
The game begins at a later point than most Gettysburg games, in the afternoon just before Ewell's attack on the U.S. Eleventh Corps that sent the federal line reeling back to Cemetery Hill. The key for CSA success is to recognize that your side is winning the race to the battlefield -- but will eventually be outnumbered. Relentless aggression is your only hope to prevail. With some luck and skillful play the Confederates can rock the Union army back on its heels and never give it a chance to recover.
Conversely, the Union player is trying to buy time and avoid losing too many units in the early going. Patience will pay off for the federal side. There will be plenty of time to inflict losses on the Confederate side once the whole Union hosts gathers. The victory point awards favor the Union, with each eliminated US factor worth 2 VPs to the CSA and each eliminated Confederate worth 3 to the Union side, so the Union can "Exchange" its way to victory.
Map detail from the The SPI edition showing Gettysburg and Seminary Ridge
Map detail from the The SPI edition showing Gettysburg and Seminary Ridge There are some differences between the original SPI edition and the Decision Games version. As was depressingly common with its re-issued SPI games, Decision Games introduced some errors in the reprint as well as making some changes.
From a rules standpoint, the biggest difference between the two games is the Attacker Effectiveness rule, which is optional in the original SPI version and a standard rule in the Decision Games version. Oddly, the Attacker Effectiveness rule was first introduced in Cemetery Hill, but many players believe it shouldn't be used in Cemetery Hill because it works against the Confederates too much.
My experience is that the Confederates can succeed using the AE rule at about the same rate as they do without it, so I think the pro-Union bias has more to do with the victory conditions and the general game situation. Indeed, I think the Confederate side is the more challenging side to play in all Gettysburg games. While the attacker effectiveness rule does hinder the attacker in some ways, it can also be exploited. Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games there is a high proportion of night turns (when ineffective attackers recover) to day turns. The game begins with 1 and half turns of activity, then a night turn; then four turns of daylight followed by night, then four more turns of daylight and one of night, ending with two turns of daylight. So ineffective units will have up to three opportunities to come back. In all other Blue & Gray games there's at most one chance to come back, and there are many more daylight runs on both sides of the night turn if it exists.
One critical errata to incorporate to make this true, however, is to treat Turn 3 as a Night turn in the Decision Games edition. It's a night turn in the SPI edition and there's no reason to think that it's any different in the DG edition.
There are also some map changes between the SPI version and the Decision Games version. The DG edition adds a new terrain type, "broken," to signify the terrain that triples defenders. The SPI edition rather clumsily simply printed right on the map the words "Defender TRIPLED in this hex" on the affected hexes (Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Wolf Hill, Little Round Top and Round Top). This doesn't change play, but is more aesthetic. The DG edition also prints the setup locations of the starting units on the map, which is an aid to set-up.
The DG edition also opens up the map a little on Seminary Ridge and Powers Hill by changing some hexes from Forest-Rough to simply Rough. This reduces the movement cost of the hexes from 6 movement points to 3. The affected hexes are 0908, 0409, 0410, 0901, 0902 and 1516.
The DG also has some other mistakes on the map, one minor and two major. The minor error is that the Roman numerals on two XI Corps units are transposed. The first major error is that the Union 1st Division, III Corps unit is left off the map. As this is a 19-factor unit, the Union will definitely miss it, so be sure to place it in hex 0423. The other major error is that hex 2112 is not indicated as a Union reinforcement hex, which it is.
Detail of the Decision Games map showing the Gettysburg vicinityHexwar.com uses the DG map for its presentation of the game, although it offers the option to play without the Attacker Effectiveness rule as a "Classic" edition of Blue & Gray. This is not an exact replica of the SPI version, though, because it uses the revised DG map.
The other differences between the two editions are cosmetic. The DG map uses superior graphics and the DG edition uses troop icons instead of the anachronistic NATO-style units symbols used in the SPI edition.
The DG edition includes three optional rules -- Strategic Movement, Cavalry Movement and Cavalry Retreat -- that should not be used in Cemetery Hill as they will throw off the game balance significantly. All favor the Union player.
I have a slight preference for the DG edition, as I like the Attacker Effectiveness rule, but I play the game both ways on Hexwar.com and own both the DG version and the SPI version as afolio game.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
ZOCs
I grew up on ZOCs.
No, it wasn't a breakfast cereal. It was the infamous "Zone of Control." All the earliest Avalon Hill classics had them, as did most of the old SPI quads and their kin. I learned about them so early in my wargame career that for a long time I gave them little thought, despite some articles in MOVES magazine about them. It was easy to forget what an artificial thing they were, and how they could distort game tactics.
Mastering the effects of ZOCs was required for good play in those old classics, but I don't think they really added much in the way of realism. One of the refreshing things about XTR's games was that almost all of them dispensed with ZOCs.
When you really think about it, a ZOC probably means that the there's a mismatch between the size of a unit and the size of the hexes. If a division can cover a 12-mile front then perhaps the hexes ought to be 12-miles across and not 4 miles across with ZOCs accounting for the other 8 miles.
ZOC rules lead to oddities such as occupying every other hex along a hex grain, whereas in actual operations you would generally occupy a more-or-less continuous line.
Overall, I think ZOCs are best dispensed with.
No, it wasn't a breakfast cereal. It was the infamous "Zone of Control." All the earliest Avalon Hill classics had them, as did most of the old SPI quads and their kin. I learned about them so early in my wargame career that for a long time I gave them little thought, despite some articles in MOVES magazine about them. It was easy to forget what an artificial thing they were, and how they could distort game tactics.
Mastering the effects of ZOCs was required for good play in those old classics, but I don't think they really added much in the way of realism. One of the refreshing things about XTR's games was that almost all of them dispensed with ZOCs.
When you really think about it, a ZOC probably means that the there's a mismatch between the size of a unit and the size of the hexes. If a division can cover a 12-mile front then perhaps the hexes ought to be 12-miles across and not 4 miles across with ZOCs accounting for the other 8 miles.
ZOC rules lead to oddities such as occupying every other hex along a hex grain, whereas in actual operations you would generally occupy a more-or-less continuous line.
Overall, I think ZOCs are best dispensed with.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
History of wargaming 1975-1990
Author's note: This article orginally appeared in Strategy & Tactics No. 136 in July 1990
THE HISTORY OF WARGAMING 1975-1990
(Jim Dunnigan's) Editor’s Note: This article was commissioned by my predecessor, Tyrone Bomba. I told the author, a newspaper journalist from Massachusetts, to go ahead and gave him the phone numbers of several people I knew so he could dig out whatever additional information he needed. My only input was some names and dates. This was how I handled the assignment for the 1975 History of Wargaming article by (Stephen B. Patrick). Deja vu all over again. Well, not exactly. I’m looking forward to the 2005 installment.
by Seth Owen
“...while still very much a special interest within the broader area of leisure time activity, simulation gaming is exhibiting a growth and diversity that can only be interpreted as a positive sign for the future.”
—Stephen B. Patrick, S& T #53 (Nov/Dec 1975)
A decade and a half after the history of wargaming was last examined in these pages a lot of things have changed. SPI has ceased to be the leading firm in the hobby—now it’s merely a trademark owned by a company few had heard of in 1975. Rand Game Associates, Taurus Games and Jagdpanther Magazine, which altogether rated two pages of ink in 1975 are now nearly forgotten, joining Conflict magazine in “...the dustbin of history”— or at best dusty wargame shelves.
Some things look much the same. There is still an Avalon Hill Game Company, PANZERBLITZ is stili in print—and a certain James F. Dunnigan edits a magazine-with-a-game-in-it-called Strategy & Tactics.
The hot news in 1975, according to Patrick’s S&T 53 article, was the “new life in Baltimore” as Avalon Hill emerged from a period of stagnation by publishing eight wargarnes in 1974, followed by four more in 1975. AH also opened a new phase in hobby history by sponsoring the first national wargames convention ORIGINS, in Baltimore.
But the real news was being made on what were, in 1975, the fringes of the wargaming hobby, as a new genre of game began to catch on. These were known as Fantasy Role Playing Games, and the first example was a supplement to a set of miniatures rules. A minor wargame publisher, known as Tactical Studies Rules, in 1974 published a supplement to its mediocre CHAINMAIL medieval miniatures rules. That supplement was the fantasy role playing rules called DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
The popularity of the fantasy role-playing games was phenomenal. By 1979 author Jon Freeman was calling it “the tail that (threatens) to wag the wargaming dog.”
Role playing games hit a responsive chord that traditional board and miniature wargames never did. Within the first few years more people were playing D&D alone than ever played all other wargames put together. The role players, or “adventure garners” as they preferred to be called, outgrew their wargaming roots and formed their own hobby, complete with magazines and national conventions.
Hard on the heels of the conceptual breakthrough represented by role playing was the technological breakthrough represented by the microchip.
As affordable small computers became available in the late 1970s, garners began to experiment with their potential. Preventing explosive growth like that of RPG’s were the plethora of incompatible operating systems and the inexperience of the designer/programmers.
Neither would last long.
Both computer games and role playing games appealed to the educated young males that formed the backbone of the wargaming hobby. While no data exists to show that these new types of gaming were choking the growth of board wargaming, that growth did stop around the same time that role playing games and computer games became available.
In 1975 these trends lay in the future, of course and their impact could not be foreseen.
A GOLDEN AGE, 1 976-80
While the potential of computers remained unfulfilled, and wargamers regarded the growing ranks of role players with a mixture of amusement and disdain, the hobby mainstream was vigorous and innovative.
The leading force in the hobby during the late 70s continued to be Simulations Publications Inc. Through S&T magazine SPI reached over 35,000 gamers every two months. In addition to subscribers, pass around of issues brought an estimated additional 60,000 garners in contact with the magazine and its games.
The late seventies were the era of the so-called “monster game.” Talked about for years —as early as S&T 11 (Jan 68) there is talk about a division level wargame of the eastern front campaign called STALINGRAD II — the publication of Game Designers’ DRANG NACH OSTEN in 1973 opened the floodgates.
GDW may have been first, but SPI soon took the lead. Massive WAR IN THE EAST soon led to WAR IN THE WEST, then WAR N EUROPE. Classic subjects such as Gettysburg (TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD), Waterloo (WELLINGTON’S VICTORY) and the Bulge (WACHT AM REIN) all got
growth pills.
While not the last monster game, the genre reached a psychological, and physical, peak with the legendary CAMPAIGN FOR NORTH AFRICA in 1979.
While SPI poured out titles, large and small, Avalon Hill sought growth through acquisitions. AH bought the rights to DIPLOMACY, 3M games and Sports IIllustrated Games in 1976, Aladdin in 1977 and Battleline in 1979.
Taking the hint from TSR’s huge success, GDW carved out a niche for itself with the science fiction role playing game TRAVELER. The financial success of TRAVELER propelled GDW out of the third world of game publishers. It wasn’t a giant like SPI, AH or TSR, but it wasn’t small either.
For Avalon Hill the most significant game was undoubtedly SQUAD LEADER in 1977. The company reinforced success by issuing gamettes such as CROSS of IRON and CRESCENDO of DOOM. The game seemed to take on a life of its own. Many players dove into the rules with an intensity heretofore seen only in RPG circles. Many played nothing else but SQUAD LEADER.
As the decade drew toward a dose several other companies seemed only one big hit away from breaking out of the pack. Simulations Canada, Yaquinto Publications, Inc. and Operational Studies Group were leading the “third world” of small publishers specializing in historical subjects. A few other firms such as Metagaming and Task Force Games, while emphasizing sd-fl, also dabbled in historical topics.
Soon after Patrick’s article in S&T 53 appeared, Conflict magazine folded. The field was not abandoned to house organs, however. In 1976 Fire & Movement appeared. The hobby was large enough to support a magazine that was about the hobby itself, as distinct from the history behind the games or the virtues of a single company’s product line.
F&M set as its task the reviewing of the flood of new games coming out. It seemed that the bad old days of one-game-a year were gone forever. Even AH started pumping out titles. Avalon Hill averaged five new wargames per year from 1975-80.
The undisputed champions of profusion were the folks at SPI. The 1980 catalog listed 196 games! Eight years before, the 1972 catalog listed only 30. Taking into account the games that had gone out of print, SPI averaged about 27 new games each year through the late 70s.
SHAKING OUT, 1981-84
As the new decade opened, Patrick’s predictions of wide popularity and continued growth seemed destined to be fulfilled. But before the decade was half over some of the biggest names in the hobby would be out and the survivors struggling to stay solvent.
Grabbing a lot of attention in 1980 was Dallas-based Yaquinto. The firm specialized in splashy graphics and innovative, if poorly organized, rules. Yaquinto assured itself a distinctive look with its line of “album” games. These tended to be simpler designs aimed at the more casual gamer. One of these attempted to cash in on the popularity of the then-popular TV show “Dallas.”
Among the harbingers of the future were the creation, by Avalon Hill, of a computer game publishing sister company and the appearance in 1977 of a new magazine-with-a-game-in-it in England, The Wargamer.
Despite the vigorous appearance of hobby giant SPI, serious problems were beginning to undermine the financial health of the company. All but a few hobby insiders were stunned by the news, early in 1982, that fantasy game superpower TSR had just bought SPI.
The full story of SPI’s demise is still obscured by the reluctance of many of the principals to talk about what went wrong, and why.
The underlying problem was apparently a sharp drop in the cash flow. It seems that SPI’s finances depended on continued growth. Besides publishing over 200 game titles in the seventies, SPI had boosted the circulation of S&T from about 1500 in 1970 to over 36,000 in 1980. The rocket-like growth of the mid-seventies slowed dramatically towards the end of the decade.
In 1979, SPI’s lease on their offices and warehouse in New York were up and they had to decide to go for larger space, the same amount of space or to even shrink. They went for smaller space for offices in New York and the same amount of space for a warehouse across the river in New Jersey. Pulling off this reorganization took a lot of time, and money. Coupled with all the other problems that came with the huge growth of the 1970’s, a sudden downturn in the retail market in 1979-80 put the company in a cash crunch.
SPI president Jim Dunnigan, his partner Redmond Simonsen and other senior staffers reached an impasse over which direction SPI should go, and disagreed over some business decisions. There were disagreements on how to solve the problems, which eventually resulted in the resignation of SPI president Jim Dunnigan in October, 1980. Accounts differ over how much acrimony was involved, but the result was that Simonsen and Brad Hessel were in charge. Before Dunnigan left, it was agreed that S&T’s founder and former editor Christopher Wagner would come back and take over as president of SPI.
Whether it was because of earlier errors by Dunnigan, new mistakes by Wagner, or market forces beyond anyone’s control, a disastrous 1981 Christmas season brought SPI finances to a crisis. Wagner began looking for help. His most noticeable move was to obtain an infusion of $300,000 from a venture capital firm. It was not enough. In the eighteen months after Dunnigan left, SPI lost over a million dollars.
TSR loaned SPI a substantial amount of money to keep operating, with SPI’s trademarks and inventory used as collateral. Meanwhile, Avalon Hill and SPI negotiated over the terms of a possible buy out. Apparently an agreement was almost reached, (leading one hobby newsletter to erroneously headline “AH buys SPI!”) but at the last minute the deal fell through.
Instead, it was TSR that held the cards. When the AH-SPI deal didn’t happen TSR foreclosed on the loan, bringing it ownership of nearly everything of value SPI had. In May of 1982, SPI ceased to exist.
Avalon Hill did not go away empty handed. Just about the entire SPI design team deserted the sinking ship and signed on to a new sister company for AH called Victory Games.
The sudden (in the hobbyists’ eyes) downfall of SPI stunned the hobby. The way TSR took over SPI’s assets caused bitterness and bad feelings that S&T was never able to overcome.
For a number of years S&T had offered subscribers lifetime subscriptions to the magazine. The most loyal and committed readers forked over hundreds of dollars for a guaranteed lifetime supply of magazines and games. When TSR took over, the company took the position it was under no legal obligation to honor those lifetime subscriptions.
While the policy may have been correct on legal grounds, it was a disaster for marketing and public relations. Many of the lifetime subscribers were opinion leaders in their gaming circles. Certainly they were the most committed fans. They felt betrayed. TSR had long been viewed with widespread distrust throughout the hobby because of wrangling over convention scheduling and questions about its commitment to historical gaming. By abandoning the lifetime subbers TSR dumped S&T’s most zealous fans. The magazine went into a subscription free fall that wouldn’t bottom out until the last part of the decade (from 36,000 in 1980 to 10,000 in 1990).
Contributing to the decline were cutbacks in the frequency of issues containing games and a decline in quality for the few that were published.
In the general hobby-wide retrenchment following the death of SPI both OSG (in 1982) and Yaquinto (in 1983) folded.
Two new magazines attempted to bridge the increasing fragmentation of the hobby by including articles running the gamut from wargaming to role playing. The first of these was Adventure Gaming, which resembled some of the fantasy game magazines in layout and approach, although it tried some wargarne coverage. The second was Gameplay, which tried a more mass market look and appeal. It had a very balanced presentation of role playing, wargaming, miniatures and general interest games. Both foundered on the rock of parochialism. It turned out that very few garners were interested in more than one type of game.
Some were interested in only a single game, (SL fanatics had On All Fronts, D&D and The Dragon) or one genre (Miniatures players had The Courier) or even one period within a genre (Ancients players had Slingshot).
Few garners had the wide gaming interests assumed by the magazines. None were satisfied with the scant coverage their favorite type of game received.
As the board game hobby staggered along, adjusting to the loss of SPI and reduced sales in general, the computer gaming hobby began to sort itself out as several manufacturer’s systems became standard, the power of the machines increased and the designer/programmers learned to take advantage of that power. By 1984 computer game reviews and ads were taking up a significant portion of hobby magazines.
Stepping into the void left by S&T’s decline was World Wide Wargames’ (3W) The Wargamer. Originally somewhat amateurish, the magazine began to improve graphically, though the quality of games was still spotty. General disaffection with Strategy & Tactics caused many garners to turn to The Wargamer, which began to challenge S&T’s status as the hobby’s premier magazine
RESHUFFLING THE DECK, 1985-89
Like a game of musical chairs, the middle years of wargaming’s third decade are a confusing tale of trades, acquisitions and newcomers.
Perhaps the most significant of the latter was the self- proclaimed “SPI of the West” in sleepy Cambria, California. By late 1986, TSR was looking for a buyer for the rapidly sinking S&T. While the quality of S&T rebounded somewhat in 1986, it was not enough to save S&T in the face of a vigorous challenge from 3W’s The Wargamer. After 3W moved its operations from England to California, the magazine began a frenzied publication schedule that reached a monthly pace by 1986. The games not only increased in quantity, they also increased in quality, surprisingly.
TSR then sold S&T to 3W, retaining the SPI trademark for use on wargames. This finally cut S&T off from the name that made it big. 3W’s acquisition of S&T set off a chain reaction of mergers, trades and spin-offs among hobby periodicals. By the time the dust had settled in 1988, 3W had S&T, while a reborn Wargamer (Volume 2) ended up with independent publisher, and former editor Christopher Cummins. Cummins later also took over F&M.
3W was not the only potential buyer for S&T. Jeff Tibbetts, publisher of the irregular wargame review magazine (and former GDW house organ) The Grenadier and sci-fi oriented Battle Technology, came out with Counterattack. This was another magazine-with-a-game-in-it. Unfortunately, either finances or commitment were in short supply, as the “bi-monthly” magazine struggled to maintain an annual frequency of publication.
As if to prove that it couldn’t be done, in 1985 another general interest game magazine called Game News lasted for fourteen issues before it went the way of the dodo.
Computer gaming continued to grow as more gamers discovered computers and more computer owners discovered computer wargames. The more powerful machines and sophisticated programs were beginning to exploit the potential of computers.
Historical documentation started to appear in game manuals, adding a new dimension besides spiffy computer graphics.
TSR attempted to capitalize on the SPI trademark by reissuing versions of some old SPI favorites such a TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD and SNIPER, along with some new games in the old tradition such as REBEL SABERS. These games were well received in the hobby, but compared to the huge sales TSR was accustomed to with its D&D related products (by now including mass market paperbacks, toys, computer games and even a Saturday morning cartoon show), the wargames were a poor return on the investment. TSR turned to a new strategy of easier-to-play wargames that could appeal to the casual gamer. The first of these was ONSLAUGHT, but the more important was THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER.
Also plunging into the historical wargame market was Milton Bradley, with its “Gamemaster” series. Using plastic pieces and top notch production, these games made it onto the shelves of the major toy chains. The MB foray was not ~ destined to last. While best-sellers by wargame hobby standards, they weren’t another MONOPOLY or CLUE.
For Avalon Hill, the eighties saw continued retrenchment, but the comuany’s course was remarkably stable, despite the ferment in the hobby and rumors about AH’s finances. AH seemed determined to weather the hard times by building on the success of ASL and simpler games as PLATOON and a new GETTYSBURG.
AH’s sister company, Victory Games, kept putting out a steady number of impressive “SPI-style” games. But slowly the old SPI staff left for other jobs, however, and in 1990 Victory would close up shop in New York and move to Baltimore.
There was a general push towards simpler games, as the hobby began to recognize that its demographics were changing. While S&T reader polls in the 1970s had found that only one in twenty readers were 35 or older, by 1990 the ‘average’ age of the readership was over 35. It was clear younger people were not getting into the hobby in large numbers.
Hobby pundits began to worry about its future. Without new players joining the hobby, it would, necessarily decline. Fewer garners would mean fewer games.
Many blamed the high complexity of games and said simpler games were needed. Introductory games such as GDW’s BATTLE FOR MOSCOW and AH’s PLATOON were designed. The simpler games also service another audience, for the single college student of the seventies had given way to the busy married breadwinner of the eighties. This cut into playing time.
Another symptom of the Yuppification of the hobby was the popularity of solitaire games. Most computer games were primarily solitaire, of course, but game design attempts in the 70s to produce an acceptable manual solitaire game failed (WOLF PACK, FALL OF ROME).
In 1983, the design barrier was broken by two titles. The first, VG’s AMBUSH, used a paragraph book to solve the problem of an intelligent opponent. This concept was borrowed from fantasy gaming. Around the same time AH used multiple charts and die rolls to create variety and interest in B-17. Both games were successful and followed by other titles using similar concepts.
Creating a brief stir in the hobby were “double-blind” games. The concept was nearly as old as board wargaming itself — Midway used it in 1964 — but its application to land campaigns seemed to promise new levels of realism. The few bold experiments ended in failure. Gamers found out they had too LITFLE information, and the games foundered on cumbersome mechanics.
POISED AT A CROSSROADS? 1990-?
“I don’t see them around in stores any more.”
— Stephen B. Patrick, Interview, Mar. 1990
Perhaps the most significant hobby event of 1989 had nothing to do with the hobby itself. The collapse of European communism and the apparent end of the cold war raised interesting questions for the hobby’s future. While future history games didn’t appear until 1972 (RED STAR/WHITE STAR), in a larger sense boardgaming is a creature of the cold war. The first wargame (in the 1950s) was designed by a young reserve officer who thought he might have to go fight Communists. The generation that plays the games is the baby boom generation that grew up in the aftermath of the greatest war in history and the nuclear bomb.
Rodger MacGowan wonders whether “It was the clear perception of danger, feeling that maybe it’s inevitable that there be a war between the US and Soviet Union that created the interest in wargames.”
That world is disappearing into the history books. The children of the 90s will probably not understand why the children of the fifties thought war and history were fascinating.
Is the hobby doomed to join the hula hoop and Mah Jong as curiosities of another age?
Rejecting the notion that there should be a “malaise” in the hobby is feisty Command magazine, founded by former S&T editor Ty Bomba and two associates. The appearance of Command gives the hobby three magazines-with-games-in them for the first time, though one of them may be down for the count (Counterattack).
Meanwhile, over at S&T, Jim Dunnigan has returned as editor. Dunnigan was, more than any other single individual, responsible for the growth of the hobby in the seventies and started off his new tenure as editor by proclaiming the need to “re-invent the wargame for the 90s.”
Computer games are becoming more sophisticated, affordable and common. The histoncity of many are approaching boardgame standards.
The hobby may be at a crossroads. It may continue its decline. It may experience a rebirth, or it may simply evolve.
Just as computer chess programs have not made traditional chess sets obsolete, the computer wargarne will not make all manual wargames obsolete. The most resilient will be the simpler games (AFRIKA CORPS), games with fun game mechanics (MODERN NAVAL BATTLES) and socially interactive games (DIPLOMACY).
The games most likely to face the fate of the dinosaurs are those using detailed mechanics to simulate an event. Only a few garners enjoy the computations required. Computer games will win over the rest, as soon as serious gamers are satisfied they do as good a job at simulating history as better board games do.
As the last decade of the century begins, it is hard to be as optimistic about the hobby as Steve Patrick was in 1975. It’s clear that the study of war, and playing games about it, will never replace Monday Night Football.
But Patrick’s 1990 observation is not completely true, either. Wargames CAN be found in every mall. Is a wargame truly defined by cardboard and hexagons? If not, computer games can be seen for what they are: just another technique for modeling what can never really be simulated, the business of, as H.G. Wells called it, “Great War.”
Bibliography
Rodger MacCowan, Interview, Mar 1990.
Patrick, Stephen B. Patrick, “The History of Wargaming Update”, Strategy & Tactics magazine, #53 (Nov/Dec 75).
Patrick, Stephen B., telephone interview, March 1990.
Freeman, Jon, The Playboy Winner’s Cuide to Board Games, Playboy Press, 1979.
_______ Avalon Hill Silver Jubilee Booklet.
Allen, Thomas B., War Games, McGraw Hill Book Co, New York, 1987.
Perla, Peter P. The Art of Wargaming, Naval Institue Press, Annapolis, MD, 1990.
Freeman, Jon, The Complete Book of Wargames, Fireside Press, New York, 1980.
Palmer, Nicholas, The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1977:
Dunnigan, James F. The Complete Wargames Handbook, William Morrow and Col., New York, 1980.
Various issues of the following magazines:
The Wargamer
Command
Counterattack
The Courier
Game play
The Kommandeur
The Avalon Hill General
Strategy & Tactics
Fire & Movement
Game News
Little Wars
THE HISTORY OF WARGAMING 1975-1990
(Jim Dunnigan's) Editor’s Note: This article was commissioned by my predecessor, Tyrone Bomba. I told the author, a newspaper journalist from Massachusetts, to go ahead and gave him the phone numbers of several people I knew so he could dig out whatever additional information he needed. My only input was some names and dates. This was how I handled the assignment for the 1975 History of Wargaming article by (Stephen B. Patrick). Deja vu all over again. Well, not exactly. I’m looking forward to the 2005 installment.
by Seth Owen
“...while still very much a special interest within the broader area of leisure time activity, simulation gaming is exhibiting a growth and diversity that can only be interpreted as a positive sign for the future.”
—Stephen B. Patrick, S& T #53 (Nov/Dec 1975)
A decade and a half after the history of wargaming was last examined in these pages a lot of things have changed. SPI has ceased to be the leading firm in the hobby—now it’s merely a trademark owned by a company few had heard of in 1975. Rand Game Associates, Taurus Games and Jagdpanther Magazine, which altogether rated two pages of ink in 1975 are now nearly forgotten, joining Conflict magazine in “...the dustbin of history”— or at best dusty wargame shelves.
Some things look much the same. There is still an Avalon Hill Game Company, PANZERBLITZ is stili in print—and a certain James F. Dunnigan edits a magazine-with-a-game-in-it-called Strategy & Tactics.
The hot news in 1975, according to Patrick’s S&T 53 article, was the “new life in Baltimore” as Avalon Hill emerged from a period of stagnation by publishing eight wargarnes in 1974, followed by four more in 1975. AH also opened a new phase in hobby history by sponsoring the first national wargames convention ORIGINS, in Baltimore.
But the real news was being made on what were, in 1975, the fringes of the wargaming hobby, as a new genre of game began to catch on. These were known as Fantasy Role Playing Games, and the first example was a supplement to a set of miniatures rules. A minor wargame publisher, known as Tactical Studies Rules, in 1974 published a supplement to its mediocre CHAINMAIL medieval miniatures rules. That supplement was the fantasy role playing rules called DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
The popularity of the fantasy role-playing games was phenomenal. By 1979 author Jon Freeman was calling it “the tail that (threatens) to wag the wargaming dog.”
Role playing games hit a responsive chord that traditional board and miniature wargames never did. Within the first few years more people were playing D&D alone than ever played all other wargames put together. The role players, or “adventure garners” as they preferred to be called, outgrew their wargaming roots and formed their own hobby, complete with magazines and national conventions.
Hard on the heels of the conceptual breakthrough represented by role playing was the technological breakthrough represented by the microchip.
As affordable small computers became available in the late 1970s, garners began to experiment with their potential. Preventing explosive growth like that of RPG’s were the plethora of incompatible operating systems and the inexperience of the designer/programmers.
Neither would last long.
Both computer games and role playing games appealed to the educated young males that formed the backbone of the wargaming hobby. While no data exists to show that these new types of gaming were choking the growth of board wargaming, that growth did stop around the same time that role playing games and computer games became available.
In 1975 these trends lay in the future, of course and their impact could not be foreseen.
A GOLDEN AGE, 1 976-80
While the potential of computers remained unfulfilled, and wargamers regarded the growing ranks of role players with a mixture of amusement and disdain, the hobby mainstream was vigorous and innovative.
The leading force in the hobby during the late 70s continued to be Simulations Publications Inc. Through S&T magazine SPI reached over 35,000 gamers every two months. In addition to subscribers, pass around of issues brought an estimated additional 60,000 garners in contact with the magazine and its games.
The late seventies were the era of the so-called “monster game.” Talked about for years —as early as S&T 11 (Jan 68) there is talk about a division level wargame of the eastern front campaign called STALINGRAD II — the publication of Game Designers’ DRANG NACH OSTEN in 1973 opened the floodgates.
GDW may have been first, but SPI soon took the lead. Massive WAR IN THE EAST soon led to WAR IN THE WEST, then WAR N EUROPE. Classic subjects such as Gettysburg (TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD), Waterloo (WELLINGTON’S VICTORY) and the Bulge (WACHT AM REIN) all got
growth pills.
While not the last monster game, the genre reached a psychological, and physical, peak with the legendary CAMPAIGN FOR NORTH AFRICA in 1979.
While SPI poured out titles, large and small, Avalon Hill sought growth through acquisitions. AH bought the rights to DIPLOMACY, 3M games and Sports IIllustrated Games in 1976, Aladdin in 1977 and Battleline in 1979.
Taking the hint from TSR’s huge success, GDW carved out a niche for itself with the science fiction role playing game TRAVELER. The financial success of TRAVELER propelled GDW out of the third world of game publishers. It wasn’t a giant like SPI, AH or TSR, but it wasn’t small either.
For Avalon Hill the most significant game was undoubtedly SQUAD LEADER in 1977. The company reinforced success by issuing gamettes such as CROSS of IRON and CRESCENDO of DOOM. The game seemed to take on a life of its own. Many players dove into the rules with an intensity heretofore seen only in RPG circles. Many played nothing else but SQUAD LEADER.
As the decade drew toward a dose several other companies seemed only one big hit away from breaking out of the pack. Simulations Canada, Yaquinto Publications, Inc. and Operational Studies Group were leading the “third world” of small publishers specializing in historical subjects. A few other firms such as Metagaming and Task Force Games, while emphasizing sd-fl, also dabbled in historical topics.
Soon after Patrick’s article in S&T 53 appeared, Conflict magazine folded. The field was not abandoned to house organs, however. In 1976 Fire & Movement appeared. The hobby was large enough to support a magazine that was about the hobby itself, as distinct from the history behind the games or the virtues of a single company’s product line.
F&M set as its task the reviewing of the flood of new games coming out. It seemed that the bad old days of one-game-a year were gone forever. Even AH started pumping out titles. Avalon Hill averaged five new wargames per year from 1975-80.
The undisputed champions of profusion were the folks at SPI. The 1980 catalog listed 196 games! Eight years before, the 1972 catalog listed only 30. Taking into account the games that had gone out of print, SPI averaged about 27 new games each year through the late 70s.
SHAKING OUT, 1981-84
As the new decade opened, Patrick’s predictions of wide popularity and continued growth seemed destined to be fulfilled. But before the decade was half over some of the biggest names in the hobby would be out and the survivors struggling to stay solvent.
Grabbing a lot of attention in 1980 was Dallas-based Yaquinto. The firm specialized in splashy graphics and innovative, if poorly organized, rules. Yaquinto assured itself a distinctive look with its line of “album” games. These tended to be simpler designs aimed at the more casual gamer. One of these attempted to cash in on the popularity of the then-popular TV show “Dallas.”
Among the harbingers of the future were the creation, by Avalon Hill, of a computer game publishing sister company and the appearance in 1977 of a new magazine-with-a-game-in-it in England, The Wargamer.
Despite the vigorous appearance of hobby giant SPI, serious problems were beginning to undermine the financial health of the company. All but a few hobby insiders were stunned by the news, early in 1982, that fantasy game superpower TSR had just bought SPI.
The full story of SPI’s demise is still obscured by the reluctance of many of the principals to talk about what went wrong, and why.
The underlying problem was apparently a sharp drop in the cash flow. It seems that SPI’s finances depended on continued growth. Besides publishing over 200 game titles in the seventies, SPI had boosted the circulation of S&T from about 1500 in 1970 to over 36,000 in 1980. The rocket-like growth of the mid-seventies slowed dramatically towards the end of the decade.
In 1979, SPI’s lease on their offices and warehouse in New York were up and they had to decide to go for larger space, the same amount of space or to even shrink. They went for smaller space for offices in New York and the same amount of space for a warehouse across the river in New Jersey. Pulling off this reorganization took a lot of time, and money. Coupled with all the other problems that came with the huge growth of the 1970’s, a sudden downturn in the retail market in 1979-80 put the company in a cash crunch.
SPI president Jim Dunnigan, his partner Redmond Simonsen and other senior staffers reached an impasse over which direction SPI should go, and disagreed over some business decisions. There were disagreements on how to solve the problems, which eventually resulted in the resignation of SPI president Jim Dunnigan in October, 1980. Accounts differ over how much acrimony was involved, but the result was that Simonsen and Brad Hessel were in charge. Before Dunnigan left, it was agreed that S&T’s founder and former editor Christopher Wagner would come back and take over as president of SPI.
Whether it was because of earlier errors by Dunnigan, new mistakes by Wagner, or market forces beyond anyone’s control, a disastrous 1981 Christmas season brought SPI finances to a crisis. Wagner began looking for help. His most noticeable move was to obtain an infusion of $300,000 from a venture capital firm. It was not enough. In the eighteen months after Dunnigan left, SPI lost over a million dollars.
TSR loaned SPI a substantial amount of money to keep operating, with SPI’s trademarks and inventory used as collateral. Meanwhile, Avalon Hill and SPI negotiated over the terms of a possible buy out. Apparently an agreement was almost reached, (leading one hobby newsletter to erroneously headline “AH buys SPI!”) but at the last minute the deal fell through.
Instead, it was TSR that held the cards. When the AH-SPI deal didn’t happen TSR foreclosed on the loan, bringing it ownership of nearly everything of value SPI had. In May of 1982, SPI ceased to exist.
Avalon Hill did not go away empty handed. Just about the entire SPI design team deserted the sinking ship and signed on to a new sister company for AH called Victory Games.
The sudden (in the hobbyists’ eyes) downfall of SPI stunned the hobby. The way TSR took over SPI’s assets caused bitterness and bad feelings that S&T was never able to overcome.
For a number of years S&T had offered subscribers lifetime subscriptions to the magazine. The most loyal and committed readers forked over hundreds of dollars for a guaranteed lifetime supply of magazines and games. When TSR took over, the company took the position it was under no legal obligation to honor those lifetime subscriptions.
While the policy may have been correct on legal grounds, it was a disaster for marketing and public relations. Many of the lifetime subscribers were opinion leaders in their gaming circles. Certainly they were the most committed fans. They felt betrayed. TSR had long been viewed with widespread distrust throughout the hobby because of wrangling over convention scheduling and questions about its commitment to historical gaming. By abandoning the lifetime subbers TSR dumped S&T’s most zealous fans. The magazine went into a subscription free fall that wouldn’t bottom out until the last part of the decade (from 36,000 in 1980 to 10,000 in 1990).
Contributing to the decline were cutbacks in the frequency of issues containing games and a decline in quality for the few that were published.
In the general hobby-wide retrenchment following the death of SPI both OSG (in 1982) and Yaquinto (in 1983) folded.
Two new magazines attempted to bridge the increasing fragmentation of the hobby by including articles running the gamut from wargaming to role playing. The first of these was Adventure Gaming, which resembled some of the fantasy game magazines in layout and approach, although it tried some wargarne coverage. The second was Gameplay, which tried a more mass market look and appeal. It had a very balanced presentation of role playing, wargaming, miniatures and general interest games. Both foundered on the rock of parochialism. It turned out that very few garners were interested in more than one type of game.
Some were interested in only a single game, (SL fanatics had On All Fronts, D&D and The Dragon) or one genre (Miniatures players had The Courier) or even one period within a genre (Ancients players had Slingshot).
Few garners had the wide gaming interests assumed by the magazines. None were satisfied with the scant coverage their favorite type of game received.
As the board game hobby staggered along, adjusting to the loss of SPI and reduced sales in general, the computer gaming hobby began to sort itself out as several manufacturer’s systems became standard, the power of the machines increased and the designer/programmers learned to take advantage of that power. By 1984 computer game reviews and ads were taking up a significant portion of hobby magazines.
Stepping into the void left by S&T’s decline was World Wide Wargames’ (3W) The Wargamer. Originally somewhat amateurish, the magazine began to improve graphically, though the quality of games was still spotty. General disaffection with Strategy & Tactics caused many garners to turn to The Wargamer, which began to challenge S&T’s status as the hobby’s premier magazine
RESHUFFLING THE DECK, 1985-89
Like a game of musical chairs, the middle years of wargaming’s third decade are a confusing tale of trades, acquisitions and newcomers.
Perhaps the most significant of the latter was the self- proclaimed “SPI of the West” in sleepy Cambria, California. By late 1986, TSR was looking for a buyer for the rapidly sinking S&T. While the quality of S&T rebounded somewhat in 1986, it was not enough to save S&T in the face of a vigorous challenge from 3W’s The Wargamer. After 3W moved its operations from England to California, the magazine began a frenzied publication schedule that reached a monthly pace by 1986. The games not only increased in quantity, they also increased in quality, surprisingly.
TSR then sold S&T to 3W, retaining the SPI trademark for use on wargames. This finally cut S&T off from the name that made it big. 3W’s acquisition of S&T set off a chain reaction of mergers, trades and spin-offs among hobby periodicals. By the time the dust had settled in 1988, 3W had S&T, while a reborn Wargamer (Volume 2) ended up with independent publisher, and former editor Christopher Cummins. Cummins later also took over F&M.
3W was not the only potential buyer for S&T. Jeff Tibbetts, publisher of the irregular wargame review magazine (and former GDW house organ) The Grenadier and sci-fi oriented Battle Technology, came out with Counterattack. This was another magazine-with-a-game-in-it. Unfortunately, either finances or commitment were in short supply, as the “bi-monthly” magazine struggled to maintain an annual frequency of publication.
As if to prove that it couldn’t be done, in 1985 another general interest game magazine called Game News lasted for fourteen issues before it went the way of the dodo.
Computer gaming continued to grow as more gamers discovered computers and more computer owners discovered computer wargames. The more powerful machines and sophisticated programs were beginning to exploit the potential of computers.
Historical documentation started to appear in game manuals, adding a new dimension besides spiffy computer graphics.
TSR attempted to capitalize on the SPI trademark by reissuing versions of some old SPI favorites such a TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD and SNIPER, along with some new games in the old tradition such as REBEL SABERS. These games were well received in the hobby, but compared to the huge sales TSR was accustomed to with its D&D related products (by now including mass market paperbacks, toys, computer games and even a Saturday morning cartoon show), the wargames were a poor return on the investment. TSR turned to a new strategy of easier-to-play wargames that could appeal to the casual gamer. The first of these was ONSLAUGHT, but the more important was THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER.
Also plunging into the historical wargame market was Milton Bradley, with its “Gamemaster” series. Using plastic pieces and top notch production, these games made it onto the shelves of the major toy chains. The MB foray was not ~ destined to last. While best-sellers by wargame hobby standards, they weren’t another MONOPOLY or CLUE.
For Avalon Hill, the eighties saw continued retrenchment, but the comuany’s course was remarkably stable, despite the ferment in the hobby and rumors about AH’s finances. AH seemed determined to weather the hard times by building on the success of ASL and simpler games as PLATOON and a new GETTYSBURG.
AH’s sister company, Victory Games, kept putting out a steady number of impressive “SPI-style” games. But slowly the old SPI staff left for other jobs, however, and in 1990 Victory would close up shop in New York and move to Baltimore.
There was a general push towards simpler games, as the hobby began to recognize that its demographics were changing. While S&T reader polls in the 1970s had found that only one in twenty readers were 35 or older, by 1990 the ‘average’ age of the readership was over 35. It was clear younger people were not getting into the hobby in large numbers.
Hobby pundits began to worry about its future. Without new players joining the hobby, it would, necessarily decline. Fewer garners would mean fewer games.
Many blamed the high complexity of games and said simpler games were needed. Introductory games such as GDW’s BATTLE FOR MOSCOW and AH’s PLATOON were designed. The simpler games also service another audience, for the single college student of the seventies had given way to the busy married breadwinner of the eighties. This cut into playing time.
Another symptom of the Yuppification of the hobby was the popularity of solitaire games. Most computer games were primarily solitaire, of course, but game design attempts in the 70s to produce an acceptable manual solitaire game failed (WOLF PACK, FALL OF ROME).
In 1983, the design barrier was broken by two titles. The first, VG’s AMBUSH, used a paragraph book to solve the problem of an intelligent opponent. This concept was borrowed from fantasy gaming. Around the same time AH used multiple charts and die rolls to create variety and interest in B-17. Both games were successful and followed by other titles using similar concepts.
Creating a brief stir in the hobby were “double-blind” games. The concept was nearly as old as board wargaming itself — Midway used it in 1964 — but its application to land campaigns seemed to promise new levels of realism. The few bold experiments ended in failure. Gamers found out they had too LITFLE information, and the games foundered on cumbersome mechanics.
POISED AT A CROSSROADS? 1990-?
“I don’t see them around in stores any more.”
— Stephen B. Patrick, Interview, Mar. 1990
Perhaps the most significant hobby event of 1989 had nothing to do with the hobby itself. The collapse of European communism and the apparent end of the cold war raised interesting questions for the hobby’s future. While future history games didn’t appear until 1972 (RED STAR/WHITE STAR), in a larger sense boardgaming is a creature of the cold war. The first wargame (in the 1950s) was designed by a young reserve officer who thought he might have to go fight Communists. The generation that plays the games is the baby boom generation that grew up in the aftermath of the greatest war in history and the nuclear bomb.
Rodger MacGowan wonders whether “It was the clear perception of danger, feeling that maybe it’s inevitable that there be a war between the US and Soviet Union that created the interest in wargames.”
That world is disappearing into the history books. The children of the 90s will probably not understand why the children of the fifties thought war and history were fascinating.
Is the hobby doomed to join the hula hoop and Mah Jong as curiosities of another age?
Rejecting the notion that there should be a “malaise” in the hobby is feisty Command magazine, founded by former S&T editor Ty Bomba and two associates. The appearance of Command gives the hobby three magazines-with-games-in them for the first time, though one of them may be down for the count (Counterattack).
Meanwhile, over at S&T, Jim Dunnigan has returned as editor. Dunnigan was, more than any other single individual, responsible for the growth of the hobby in the seventies and started off his new tenure as editor by proclaiming the need to “re-invent the wargame for the 90s.”
Computer games are becoming more sophisticated, affordable and common. The histoncity of many are approaching boardgame standards.
The hobby may be at a crossroads. It may continue its decline. It may experience a rebirth, or it may simply evolve.
Just as computer chess programs have not made traditional chess sets obsolete, the computer wargarne will not make all manual wargames obsolete. The most resilient will be the simpler games (AFRIKA CORPS), games with fun game mechanics (MODERN NAVAL BATTLES) and socially interactive games (DIPLOMACY).
The games most likely to face the fate of the dinosaurs are those using detailed mechanics to simulate an event. Only a few garners enjoy the computations required. Computer games will win over the rest, as soon as serious gamers are satisfied they do as good a job at simulating history as better board games do.
As the last decade of the century begins, it is hard to be as optimistic about the hobby as Steve Patrick was in 1975. It’s clear that the study of war, and playing games about it, will never replace Monday Night Football.
But Patrick’s 1990 observation is not completely true, either. Wargames CAN be found in every mall. Is a wargame truly defined by cardboard and hexagons? If not, computer games can be seen for what they are: just another technique for modeling what can never really be simulated, the business of, as H.G. Wells called it, “Great War.”
Bibliography
Rodger MacCowan, Interview, Mar 1990.
Patrick, Stephen B. Patrick, “The History of Wargaming Update”, Strategy & Tactics magazine, #53 (Nov/Dec 75).
Patrick, Stephen B., telephone interview, March 1990.
Freeman, Jon, The Playboy Winner’s Cuide to Board Games, Playboy Press, 1979.
_______ Avalon Hill Silver Jubilee Booklet.
Allen, Thomas B., War Games, McGraw Hill Book Co, New York, 1987.
Perla, Peter P. The Art of Wargaming, Naval Institue Press, Annapolis, MD, 1990.
Freeman, Jon, The Complete Book of Wargames, Fireside Press, New York, 1980.
Palmer, Nicholas, The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1977:
Dunnigan, James F. The Complete Wargames Handbook, William Morrow and Col., New York, 1980.
Various issues of the following magazines:
The Wargamer
Command
Counterattack
The Courier
Game play
The Kommandeur
The Avalon Hill General
Strategy & Tactics
Fire & Movement
Game News
Little Wars
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Onslaught Review
After it absorbed SPI the role-playing game pioneering firm of TSR made a brief foray into the hex-and-counter wargame market. Besides continuing to publish Strategy & tactics magazine and many SPI-style board wargames, it also tried its hand at a more Avalon Hill-style approach, with larger counters, mounted board and the traditional "flat box" style packaging.
Onslaught was published in 1987 and took advantage of TSR's extensive RPG distribution network to appear in a number on mass-market venues. I bought my copy at a WaldenBooks in a mall, for example.
The box art implies that Onslaught was envisioned as the first in a possible line of wargames because it was billed as "An SPI Lightning Simulation Game," which implies that there would be others.
It's an interesting commentary on the state of the wargaming hobby circa 1987 that a "four-hour wargame" would be termed a "lightning" game.
The game itself is fairly conventional hex-and-counter fare in most regards, with a CRT, combat factor-movement factor cardboard units with NATO-style symbols and zones of control.
The most distinctive aspect of the design is its use of an "action"-based turn sequence instead of the more typical movement phase-combat phase player turn sequence used in most wargames.
Instead the players alternate expending supply points to activate stacks of units which execute attacks or movement. The Allies have by far the greater number of these supply points, which gives them the initiative and is responsible for their greater combat power. The combat factors of units on both sides are approximately the same, although the Allied units are generally a bit faster than comparable German units.
As befits a game that's meant to be "low" complexity and appear in mass-market retailers, Onslaught avoids a lot of the complicating details seen in most similar wargames. For example, there are no unit designations and all units of the same type have the same strength. All allied armor divisions are the same, for example, with no attempt to make a distinction between U.S. and British OB or between the "heavy" regimental U.S. armored divisions (2nd and 3rd AD) and the "light" combat command armored divisions (all the rest).
The game still manages to include rules for supply, armor breakthroughs, paratroops, terrain modifiers and a Bulge-style German counteroffensive, so it's still clearly a "real" wargame.
The game didn't attar ct a wide following at the time, perhaps being too much for the mass market and too little for the style preferred by the "hard core" wargamers of the time.
It's worth rediscovering though, as it probably fits the tenor of these times better. The graphic presentation was superior by 1987 standards and still acceptable by today's standards. The four-hour playing time is a little long by current practice but still easy to fit into today's busy schedules. The large counters are also pretty easy on older eyes and easier for fumble fingers like mine to handle.
Onslaught was published in 1987 and took advantage of TSR's extensive RPG distribution network to appear in a number on mass-market venues. I bought my copy at a WaldenBooks in a mall, for example.
The box art implies that Onslaught was envisioned as the first in a possible line of wargames because it was billed as "An SPI Lightning Simulation Game," which implies that there would be others.
It's an interesting commentary on the state of the wargaming hobby circa 1987 that a "four-hour wargame" would be termed a "lightning" game.
The game itself is fairly conventional hex-and-counter fare in most regards, with a CRT, combat factor-movement factor cardboard units with NATO-style symbols and zones of control.
The most distinctive aspect of the design is its use of an "action"-based turn sequence instead of the more typical movement phase-combat phase player turn sequence used in most wargames.
Instead the players alternate expending supply points to activate stacks of units which execute attacks or movement. The Allies have by far the greater number of these supply points, which gives them the initiative and is responsible for their greater combat power. The combat factors of units on both sides are approximately the same, although the Allied units are generally a bit faster than comparable German units.
As befits a game that's meant to be "low" complexity and appear in mass-market retailers, Onslaught avoids a lot of the complicating details seen in most similar wargames. For example, there are no unit designations and all units of the same type have the same strength. All allied armor divisions are the same, for example, with no attempt to make a distinction between U.S. and British OB or between the "heavy" regimental U.S. armored divisions (2nd and 3rd AD) and the "light" combat command armored divisions (all the rest).
The game still manages to include rules for supply, armor breakthroughs, paratroops, terrain modifiers and a Bulge-style German counteroffensive, so it's still clearly a "real" wargame.
The game didn't attar ct a wide following at the time, perhaps being too much for the mass market and too little for the style preferred by the "hard core" wargamers of the time.
It's worth rediscovering though, as it probably fits the tenor of these times better. The graphic presentation was superior by 1987 standards and still acceptable by today's standards. The four-hour playing time is a little long by current practice but still easy to fit into today's busy schedules. The large counters are also pretty easy on older eyes and easier for fumble fingers like mine to handle.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
SPI's Austerlitz -- terrain issues
By 1973 Jim Dunnigan's wargame-producing system was cranking up into full gear. One technique that made this possible was creating game systems that could be ported to cover many different battles. One of these was the Napoleon at War system which started with Napoleon at Waterloo, but was soon expanded to cover many other Napoleonic-era battles and, with suitable modifications, formed the basis for the "quads" on many other eras from pike and shot through modern warfare (and even naval warfare in Sixth Fleet!).
The main advantage of this approach from a gamer's point of view was providing a large number of new game situations without requiring the player to learn a whole new set of rules. The underlying validity of this approach has been proven time and again and still powers game systems such as Borg's Commands and Colors, Advanced Squad Leader, Great Campaigns of the American Civil War, Great War at Sea, PanzerGrenadier and many others.
The disadvantage of this approach is that it can result in a game system that ends up ignoring the factors that made each battle unique or affected it in an unusual way. One might easily end up with a wargame on a battle that fails to bear much resemblance to the historical event. As much as SPI emphasized history in it designs, this flaw existed in many of their games.
Among them is the NAW-system game Austerlitz: Battle of Three Emperors.
The state of the art in game design in the 1970s advanced at a rapid clip, but unevenly. There were early strides with improved orders of battle and a lot of the really big mistakes that rendered early Avalon Hill efforts like Stalingrad and Afrika Korps fanciful were corrected with better research. Austerlitz includes a complete and reasonably accurate OB that makes some interesting distinctions in strength and movement capabilities between different units and between the two armies as a whole. Overall, the French have a significant edge in speed, generally moving 1 movement point faster than the equivalent Austro-Russian units. Fair enough.
Terrain analysis in 1970s era games, on the other hand, still tended to be simplistic and often missed the point. In Austerlitz the waterways are depicted appropriately, but the towns tend to be too small, which starts to distort the effect the battlefield had on the course of the fighting. The game also doesn't make any functional distinction between cavalry and infantry other than movement allowances, so cavalry units can benefit from fighting in towns, which is quite unhistorical. Artillery units can also benefit from occupying town sites, which is also contrary to historical practice and experience.
The game most misses the mark, however, in its treatment of elevation. One can't read an account of Austerlitz without soon hearing about the Pratzen Heights, which was the dominant terrain feature affecting the fighting. The mile-wide plateau is reduced to a single-hex knoll, which ends up being a position of minor local importance instead of the battlefield's key terrain.
Apparently the designer, John Young, was misled by the gently rolling terrain of the battlefield into thinking the elevations were not important because there were no high, steeply-sided hills. (Actually, there was one, the Santon, on the French left, but it doesn't appear in the game at all).
But a height advantage in military terms is extremely relative, not absolute. In otherwise flat terrain a very slight elevation advantage can take enormous importance, while in hilly ground a steep hill may be unimportant if it's overlooked by higher ground nearby.
On the Austerlitz battlefield the Pratzen Plateau was important, not because it was difficult ground, but because it was high enough to hide troop movements, provide a defensive advantage and when occupied by the French, completely dominate the Allied position.
Coping with this kind of effect was beyond the scope of a 1970s-era wargame, but it means that Austerlitz, the game, ends up bearing little resemblance to the actual battle.
Other aspects of the game working against its historical authenticity are the victory conditions, which seem to be designed to induce the Allied player into making an attempt to strike the French right as per the actual historical plan. This course of action stands little chance of success, however, and most allied players turn their attention to winning the slugfest in the center of the battlefield. Whichever army becomes demoralized first (by losing 70 combat factors worth of units) will almost certainly go on to lose the game, given the severe penalties of demoralization. (Demoralized units lose their zones of control and have their combat strengths cut in half.)
Another terrain oddity on the map is the "Abbey" near Sokolnitz Castle. The game makes this a very strong position, quadrupling the combat strength of any unit occupying it, but I don't see a reference to such a location in accounts of the battle. It doesn't appear in the game Napoleon's Triumph, which has a very detailed and sophisticated terrain analysis nor is there any reference to it in Osprey's campaign book Austerlitz 1805, which includes several detailed battlefield maps.
Austerlitz is an interesting and challenging game. As a matter of fact, it's one of the best-balanced wargames ever. According to Hexwar.com's statistics as of Jan. 16, 2008, the French side as won 793 times, and the Allies 783 times, a ratio of 50.3/49.7. It's just not very much like Austerlitz.
The main advantage of this approach from a gamer's point of view was providing a large number of new game situations without requiring the player to learn a whole new set of rules. The underlying validity of this approach has been proven time and again and still powers game systems such as Borg's Commands and Colors, Advanced Squad Leader, Great Campaigns of the American Civil War, Great War at Sea, PanzerGrenadier and many others.
The disadvantage of this approach is that it can result in a game system that ends up ignoring the factors that made each battle unique or affected it in an unusual way. One might easily end up with a wargame on a battle that fails to bear much resemblance to the historical event. As much as SPI emphasized history in it designs, this flaw existed in many of their games.
Among them is the NAW-system game Austerlitz: Battle of Three Emperors.
The state of the art in game design in the 1970s advanced at a rapid clip, but unevenly. There were early strides with improved orders of battle and a lot of the really big mistakes that rendered early Avalon Hill efforts like Stalingrad and Afrika Korps fanciful were corrected with better research. Austerlitz includes a complete and reasonably accurate OB that makes some interesting distinctions in strength and movement capabilities between different units and between the two armies as a whole. Overall, the French have a significant edge in speed, generally moving 1 movement point faster than the equivalent Austro-Russian units. Fair enough.
Terrain analysis in 1970s era games, on the other hand, still tended to be simplistic and often missed the point. In Austerlitz the waterways are depicted appropriately, but the towns tend to be too small, which starts to distort the effect the battlefield had on the course of the fighting. The game also doesn't make any functional distinction between cavalry and infantry other than movement allowances, so cavalry units can benefit from fighting in towns, which is quite unhistorical. Artillery units can also benefit from occupying town sites, which is also contrary to historical practice and experience.
The game most misses the mark, however, in its treatment of elevation. One can't read an account of Austerlitz without soon hearing about the Pratzen Heights, which was the dominant terrain feature affecting the fighting. The mile-wide plateau is reduced to a single-hex knoll, which ends up being a position of minor local importance instead of the battlefield's key terrain.
Apparently the designer, John Young, was misled by the gently rolling terrain of the battlefield into thinking the elevations were not important because there were no high, steeply-sided hills. (Actually, there was one, the Santon, on the French left, but it doesn't appear in the game at all).
But a height advantage in military terms is extremely relative, not absolute. In otherwise flat terrain a very slight elevation advantage can take enormous importance, while in hilly ground a steep hill may be unimportant if it's overlooked by higher ground nearby.
On the Austerlitz battlefield the Pratzen Plateau was important, not because it was difficult ground, but because it was high enough to hide troop movements, provide a defensive advantage and when occupied by the French, completely dominate the Allied position.
Coping with this kind of effect was beyond the scope of a 1970s-era wargame, but it means that Austerlitz, the game, ends up bearing little resemblance to the actual battle.
Other aspects of the game working against its historical authenticity are the victory conditions, which seem to be designed to induce the Allied player into making an attempt to strike the French right as per the actual historical plan. This course of action stands little chance of success, however, and most allied players turn their attention to winning the slugfest in the center of the battlefield. Whichever army becomes demoralized first (by losing 70 combat factors worth of units) will almost certainly go on to lose the game, given the severe penalties of demoralization. (Demoralized units lose their zones of control and have their combat strengths cut in half.)
Another terrain oddity on the map is the "Abbey" near Sokolnitz Castle. The game makes this a very strong position, quadrupling the combat strength of any unit occupying it, but I don't see a reference to such a location in accounts of the battle. It doesn't appear in the game Napoleon's Triumph, which has a very detailed and sophisticated terrain analysis nor is there any reference to it in Osprey's campaign book Austerlitz 1805, which includes several detailed battlefield maps.
Austerlitz is an interesting and challenging game. As a matter of fact, it's one of the best-balanced wargames ever. According to Hexwar.com's statistics as of Jan. 16, 2008, the French side as won 793 times, and the Allies 783 times, a ratio of 50.3/49.7. It's just not very much like Austerlitz.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Featured game: Starforce Alpha Centauri
One game I've always liked and admired but never had much success in getting friends to play is Redmond Simonsen's 1974 game Starforce Alpha Centauri.
I'm not entirely sure why this is. It was one of SPI's best-selling games and even earned a little bit of popular culture fame when the rock band Human League took it's name from one of the factions in the game.
Perhaps it's because it's a very intellectual game, in both premise and execution. While Star Wars and Star Trek captured the public's imagination with their "Space Opera" approach, they rest on very shaky foundation in physics.
Simonsen, on the other hand, created an extremely clever and unique game that treated the question of interstellar war and travel in a way that treated Einstein with respect while still allowing for it to occur.
To do this he had to invent a lot of science, but this is defensible in a game set five centuries in the future. Clearly a wargame designer in 1474, had any existed, could never have imagined what the world of 1974 would look like. let alone what war would have been like. Indeed, no one in 1474 had any notion that the future could or would be different from the present in any notable way. The very notion of science fiction would even occur until the nineteenth century. Given the accelerating pace of scientific progress over the past couple hundred years it's even reasonable to think that the world of the 25th Century will be much more different from today than today is from the fifteenth century.
Dealing with faster-than-light travel is the first chore of a sci fi writer hoping to craft a story dealing with interstellar travel. Ignoring the problem is not an option. The general limits imposed by Einstein are widely known, at least among the audience that might be expected to read science fiction literature or go to the movies.
There have been a lot of approaches and this web site does a good job of running down the list: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html
A section of the Web site deals with Starforce Alpha Centauri, which turns out out have one of the best-thought out and plausible solutions to the FTL problem. Simonsen's solution creates an internally self-consistent world where wars make political sense and at the same time imagines a really futuristic style of warfare that does not involve anachronistic space "fleets" with "star battleships" , spaceship analogs of aircraft carriers or other unlikely developments. One imagines that if Aristotle could have imagined space battles he would have had them occur between "star triremes" that would have rammed each other.
In Starforce interstellar travel is achieved by special design spaceships that can "shift" in an instant from one point in space to another through the physic efforts of psionic-capable women assisted by sentient machines called Gnostechs. There are many limits on the process in distance, time and location. The telekinetics must be familiar with the space they are shifting from and to. Shifting past certain distances involves risk that include ending up someplace other than where you were headed. Combat involves groups of teleships attempting to involuntarily shifting their opponents.
The science fiction back story also creates a political and economic rationale for the wars because the number of telekinetics turns out to be a function of population size. About 1 out of every 1 million women is a potential telekinetic, a figure that cannot be increased. Politicalpower flows from the number of people under control, creating the basis for conflict. Human nature takes care of the rest. Actually, not just human nature, as the game includes some non-human races as well. The nature of teleships, however, doesn't vary and all the spacefaring races end up with very similar designs.
The game explicitly states that the telekinetics never try to kill their opponents and so the wars are relatively bloodless, with fatalities mostly happening by accident.
It's a stunningly original story line.
Despite the fact the game seems to have fallen off the radar among gamers, I think it's still worthy of notice and hope I'll get to play it someday.
I'm not entirely sure why this is. It was one of SPI's best-selling games and even earned a little bit of popular culture fame when the rock band Human League took it's name from one of the factions in the game.
Perhaps it's because it's a very intellectual game, in both premise and execution. While Star Wars and Star Trek captured the public's imagination with their "Space Opera" approach, they rest on very shaky foundation in physics.
Simonsen, on the other hand, created an extremely clever and unique game that treated the question of interstellar war and travel in a way that treated Einstein with respect while still allowing for it to occur.
To do this he had to invent a lot of science, but this is defensible in a game set five centuries in the future. Clearly a wargame designer in 1474, had any existed, could never have imagined what the world of 1974 would look like. let alone what war would have been like. Indeed, no one in 1474 had any notion that the future could or would be different from the present in any notable way. The very notion of science fiction would even occur until the nineteenth century. Given the accelerating pace of scientific progress over the past couple hundred years it's even reasonable to think that the world of the 25th Century will be much more different from today than today is from the fifteenth century.
Dealing with faster-than-light travel is the first chore of a sci fi writer hoping to craft a story dealing with interstellar travel. Ignoring the problem is not an option. The general limits imposed by Einstein are widely known, at least among the audience that might be expected to read science fiction literature or go to the movies.
There have been a lot of approaches and this web site does a good job of running down the list: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html
A section of the Web site deals with Starforce Alpha Centauri, which turns out out have one of the best-thought out and plausible solutions to the FTL problem. Simonsen's solution creates an internally self-consistent world where wars make political sense and at the same time imagines a really futuristic style of warfare that does not involve anachronistic space "fleets" with "star battleships" , spaceship analogs of aircraft carriers or other unlikely developments. One imagines that if Aristotle could have imagined space battles he would have had them occur between "star triremes" that would have rammed each other.
In Starforce interstellar travel is achieved by special design spaceships that can "shift" in an instant from one point in space to another through the physic efforts of psionic-capable women assisted by sentient machines called Gnostechs. There are many limits on the process in distance, time and location. The telekinetics must be familiar with the space they are shifting from and to. Shifting past certain distances involves risk that include ending up someplace other than where you were headed. Combat involves groups of teleships attempting to involuntarily shifting their opponents.
The science fiction back story also creates a political and economic rationale for the wars because the number of telekinetics turns out to be a function of population size. About 1 out of every 1 million women is a potential telekinetic, a figure that cannot be increased. Politicalpower flows from the number of people under control, creating the basis for conflict. Human nature takes care of the rest. Actually, not just human nature, as the game includes some non-human races as well. The nature of teleships, however, doesn't vary and all the spacefaring races end up with very similar designs.
The game explicitly states that the telekinetics never try to kill their opponents and so the wars are relatively bloodless, with fatalities mostly happening by accident.
It's a stunningly original story line.
Despite the fact the game seems to have fallen off the radar among gamers, I think it's still worthy of notice and hope I'll get to play it someday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)