Every year about this time of year, I am asked by GAMES magazine to collaborate on their annual GAMES 100 feature. The article is a huge effort with four or five contributors and it is sent to the printers roughly in the last week of August for a late October/early November street date. I contribute a piece on the ‘best conflict simulations/historical wargames of the previous year’. Over the years I’ve been doing this task, I’ve occasionally caught some grief about the games I choose as candidates. “That’s not wargamey enough” or “Are you kidding? That’s not even a wargame”. Controversial choices in the past have been WINGS OF WAR (Nexus/Fantasy Flight), DUEL IN THE DARK (Z-Man), TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (GMT), and MEMOIR 44 (Days of Wonder), all on the basis of them somehow not being enough of a ‘wargame’ to really count as a choice. The recent submission of this year’s list had me thinking on my method of choosing games and the validity of the process– trust me, there is a process, no matter what the critics might suggest.
First of all, consider the demographics of GAMES magazine’s audience. For the most part, they are well-educated, intellectual, probably euro-game centric. They know about games and puzzles, probably more than the average family who may or may not be dimly aware that something other than Monopoly, Scrabble and Risk exist. They may know about wargames or have seen them on the shelves somewhere, but likely they are going to be reminded of the niche hobby when they read the Historical Simulation section of the Games 100 list. They are not going to be seduced into wargaming by playing anything on the level of Advanced Squad Leader or Third Reich. They might appreciate a historically themed eurogame, but will they really want to figure out the odds of a soaking-off attack during Hube’s breakout? I doubt it. So, with that said, I admit, I have leaned on a mix of the familiar and the big, bright, colorful and easy to understand “gateway” games such as Wings of War and Memoir 44. I’m pleased to see that time has proven me correct on many of these choices. Wings of War was all over the hardcore historical miniatures convention I recently attended (Historicon), and there were games of Axis and Allies Miniatures running non-stop in the lobby. Even the hardcore wargaming types like an easier game from time to time. More importantly, there’s nothing wrong with that– they are STILL historical conflict simulation games, no matter how hard the hardcore squawk about it.
So aside from appealing to the target demographics, what are my qualifications for this list? How is this objective?
I’ll be the first to state it isn’t objective. I conduct a ranking system that isn’t really written down until I have written a list of the games that I have played and liked during the course of the year. Then I start mentally assigning places based on these factors:
Is it in the publishing window? I will consider a game from roughly late August of the previous year right up until June or early July of the current year. This is entirely a deadline and publishing process issue.
Familiarity. Have I had a chance to play it more than a solitaire run through? Frankly, there’s not enough time in the world to play every game that comes out every year. Nor can I afford to buy all those games (this effort is entirely on my dime, I might add). The Games 100 wargame section is at best a survey of favorites heavily weighted by personal bias, but I like to say I’ve put in an effort to be familiar with how the games work and if they are entertaining.
Is it an original design, and not in a series? I favor a new design published for the first time just slightly over another game in a series. Reuse of a game system is not any barrier to being put on the list (Kutuzov from last year was in the same system as Wellington a few years earlier, which bore a resemblance to Napoleonic Wars a couple years before that).
Is the design fairly unique and interesting? A game might be new and not part of a series, and still as dull as dishwater. At this stage of my life, unless it has something else going for it (a totally unique period being simulated, for instance), another Igo/Hugo grand tactical game on a Big Three topic isn’t going to register very high on my radar. Something else might counter this prejudice, such as a very clever approach to the historical events aspect of the game.
The historical era being simulated. If the game is set during the time of the big three (Napleonic, American Civil War, and WW2 battles) I usually am less enthusiastic about the game unless there is another draw factor, such as clever mechanics. Obviously I don’t rule out anything based upon this prejudice– there have been many American Civil War, Napoleonic Era and World War II era games on lists I have prepared over the years.
Can I engage with it quickly? Wargame hobbyists often bemoan the so-called aging of the hobby. “We are older”, they say. “There are no youngsters interested in wargaming any more” Perhaps. I would counter that wargames don’t make it very easy for a youngster to ‘gateway in’ to the hobby, either. In MY youngster days, my dad taught me how to play wargames with the Napoleon at Waterloo game by SPI. Free, easy to teach, easy to learn. There have to be more games like this if we expect to “grow” opponents. Even if I DID have endless hours to devote to a large scale simulation, making a turn a day or so, I rather doubt I would spend that time wargaming. So I tend to favor games that both can be grasped quickly and come to resolution quickly– card based games, really good solitaire designs, card driven games such as the We the People family of games from GMT.. all of these get plus points from me.
Lastly, I admit that What’s the Price? factors in my decision these days, too. There was a day when I bought games indiscriminately.. when I could afford them. I ended up with bookshelves of games that I will never play. I will always favor a publisher with a “small is beautiful” concept– small concept, small price, big value. I cheered the “modern microgames” that Avalanche Press and One Small Step put out in recent years (and yes, they did appear on the list).
So there you have it. Sure, I admit that it’s not stunningly scientific nor is it free from my own prejudices. What list isn’t? I hope I have at least honestly laid out my prejudices about wargames in this post. I will not reveal what I chose for 2009’s Games 100, you’ll have to wait until early November to see it. But you might think back to this post when you see what I have chosen, and understand why.
Third Point of Singularity 